Re: Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

Billy wrote:
> In article <68lse9F2u12jfU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. <homestud@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote:
>>> Someone else wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl <jl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In article <68johfF2thkejU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>   Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. <homestud@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Someone else wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 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 im****ted any woods for ****p building mostly from Scandinavia.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal
>>>>> and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was
>>>>> available of course - but only after the forests had made room
>>>>> for it.
>>>>
>>>> No, it was always available...
>>>
>>> Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is
>>>>> surprising that any trees survived at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down".
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Manufacturing, farming, and the
>>>>>> monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main
>>>>>> causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the
>>>>>> British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious.
>>>>
>>>> Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests
>>>> to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada.
>>
>> Nonsense! : See
>> http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/jessiewhit/deforestation.html
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/
>>>>
>>>> "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak
>>>> British armada years where much of it was cut down for making
>>>> ****ps."
>>>>
>>>> and, interestingly,
>>>>
>>>> http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html
>>>>
>>>> "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later
>>>> plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one
>>>> of his expeditions."
>>
>> So? If the estates were his,
>
> Oh so now you have gone and done it. You had to bring up the conquest
> and all the troubles that entails. There was a considerable amount of
> resistance to the idea of Irish property being requisitioned by the
> English. You may have heard about it.

LOL! Indeed I have!! Why do you think I said that if not to get up the
noses 
of our fundamentalist republicans?
Humour is as humour does!

>
>> then he had every right to do as he pleased. In
>> any case, how many ****ps? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak
>> involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against
>> the English? After all, without England, Ireland would not have
>> progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using wood
>> for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was
>> Forestry. Nothing to do with the English.

-- 
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.