Re: Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

Scríobh "allan connochie" <conncohies@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
>"jl" <jl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4f9cfb5854jl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <68johfF2thkejU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>   Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. <homestud@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Someone else wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 be given>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to
do
>>> with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees
were
>>> the main causes of the deforestation.
>>
>> As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and
>> cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of
course
>> - but only after the forests had made room for it.
>
>Plus I'd imagine that Ireland must be the same as Britain in that
whatever 
>deforestation took place in the second half of the second millenium was 
>deforestation of what little remained of the woodland cover. Most of 
>Britain's had already gone by 1500AD because of pastoral agriculture; the

>need for resources; and even possibly natural climatic effects within the

>last 5000 years or so. This website claims (I imagine it can only be 
>guesswork) that the original forests had been halved by 500BC and was
down 
>to around just 15% by the 1080s. Perhaps degree may have been different
but 
>surely Iron Age and first millenium Ireland couldn't have been that 
>different from Britain at that time?

Irish agriculture was much more pastoral than arable, which may have
meant we held on to forest for longer.

>http://www.stewardwood.org/woodland/tree_loss.htm
>
>Allan 
>