Re: Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

Someone else wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:52:06 -0700, Billy <wildbilly@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <68lqtbF2t6vuqU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. <homestud@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 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:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
> So, <laughter>, are you telling me that the British overlords of
> Ireland didn't use any of the forests of Ireland for their own ****p
> building?

Of course not. I am merely stating that you cannot b;lame the English for 
the deforestation. They only were to blame in a small way. See Allan 
Connanchie's post whci says much the same, Quote: "> 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?

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

- UNquote.

So, the deforestation of Ireland was due to natural causes and actually 
started centuruies earlier than any English occupation.

>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Yes, but not completely.

How so?

>
>>>>> 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
>>>> ****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."
>>>>
>>>> "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 ****ps 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 ****ps 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?
>
>> Shame on you Hal. jl gave you a retort with citations to prove his
>> point. Until you do likewise, we can only assume that you are blowing
>> hot air.
>
> Hal has done nothing else than blow hot air. Regulars of SCI have long
> ago come to this conclusion.

I am in very good company here then, since your own efforts have been far 
from well received and are definately hot air!. Ignorance is as ignorance 
does!

-- 
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.