Coillte Clear Felling in South Dublin/Wicklow

Johnny Jukebox

You may or may not be aware that Coillte are currently clear felling large swathes of forest in the South Dublin/Noth Wicklow area. This activity is detrimental to all recreational users of these amenities, and particularly to MTBs, as many lovingly crafted trails are disappearing overnight.

If you think this is unreasonable, add your voice to the on-line petition at;

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stopcoillte/index.html

jman0

Now what sort of trees are those that are being felled?
Aren't they that imported pine that is not indigenous and adds to the acidity of the soil which then gets into our rivers and streams?
Maybe it's best if they were all felled and done away with, replanted with some indigenous varieties.

BeardyGit

jman0 wrote:

Now what sort of trees are those that are being felled?
Aren't they that imported pine that is not indigenous and adds to the acidity of the soil which then gets into our rivers and streams?
Maybe it's best if they were all felled and done away with, replanted with some indigenous varieties.

Yes, bring back the great elk too.....

Wake up and smell the coffee, will you? If they clearfell, it's for commercial purposes. You don't really think they're going to plant oak trees as a replacement, do you? They'll plant more pine and wreck the place in another 25-30 years for the next commercial crop harvest.

Coillte must be stopped.

Gil

Johnny Jukebox

jman0 wrote:

Now what sort of trees are those that are being felled?
Aren't they that imported pine that is not indigenous and adds to the acidity of the soil which then gets into our rivers and streams?
Maybe it's best if they were all felled and done away with, replanted with some indigenous varieties.

I'm not a forester, but yes, I believe you're correct.

What you propose would take many many years to complete. I think we should try to maximise what we've got right now and which has taken 40-50 years to grow anyway, irrespective of the type of trees.

Johnny Jukebox

Gil_Dub wrote:

Wake up and smell the coffee, will you? If they clearfell, it's for commercial purposes. You don't really think they're going to plant oak trees as a replacement, do you? They'll plant more pine and wreck the place in another 25-30 years for the next commercial crop harvest.

Coillte must be stopped.

Gil

I dont believe for one second that its profitable - it simply doesnt have the scale or cost base to make it so. Coillte *will* plant what is necessary to fufill their mandate - that is the core issue here; to make that mandate recreational rather than agricultural for forest parks close to large urban areas.

I think Coillte do a great job all told - can you imagine what the Irish outdoors would be like without access through Coillte lands ?

Victor

Gil_Dub wrote:

Wake up and smell the coffee, will you? If they clearfell, it's for commercial purposes. You don't really think they're going to plant oak trees as a replacement, do you? They'll plant more pine and wreck the place in another 25-30 years for the next commercial crop harvest.

Coillte are moving towards mixed forests.

Drapper

great campaign! I'll sign! its sad to see large areas being deforested on a weekly basis! also, replanting has not happened..........

vist slade, 3 rock and kilmaseogue! large open areas bare!

BeardyGit

Coillte are planting 12-13% native species for all new plantations as a percentage of area planted, where possible.

Three rock for example will not support large scale plantation of anything other than fir variety, as the topsoil density and mid layer terrain won't support deciduous trees. So, we gain nothing.

I'm all for Coillte operating a business, but as JJ says, we need to amend their mandate to reflect the mixed use of forests close to urban centres.

Politicians need to really show what they're made of and get involved in this. I've already bought one with the promise of a vote, and he's really making his best efforts to do something to help. Each of you should do the same if your political affiliation is as flexible as mine.

Don't waste your time with the greens though - They're well intentioned but nobody's going to listen. Hassle your FF councillor and tell him you'll vote him out next election unless he fixes this now.

jman0

Those trees were planted for commercial reasons in the first place.
It's not me that needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
Did you really think they planted all those ****e pine trees for the looks?
They don't even root properly on irish hillsides. Take a stroll through some of those forests and you'll find large areas blown over by the wind, even domino effect.

Lookit, i love trees but i realize that they are a renewable resource, and yes it takes longer to grow a mixed forest but 200-300 yrs is but a tiny drop in the bucket of time.
Just seems a long time to us.

BeardyGit

I've spoken at length with the forestry manager for south Dublin and North Wicklow. He's told me that 3 rock was planted in the 50's as a commercial crop, but was never felled in the late 70's as scheduled. He said the only reason they're having to go in there now is because the forest hasn't been managed properly and is now becoming dangerous - As evident with the windfall in recent years both there and on Ticknock.

He told me he'd love to leave the woods there, just drop whatever's dangerous. But he says the reason he can't is because he has been told to fell the wood. He told me that if someone at ministerial level (as primary shareholders are two government departments) tell them to make it safe and leave it alone, he'll be delighted to do so.

So, it's not Coillte's area managers and forestry workers - It's the f'n bean counters doing the damage.

kincsem

I can't agree with your petition. Coillte planted and managed the trees. You contributed nothing.

Morgan

kincsem wrote:

I can't agree with your petition. Coillte planted and managed the trees. You contributed nothing.

As a state owned company I believe that Coillte's ultimate responsibility is to the people of Ireland. Short term profit-making by felling these forests in not in our best interests. The population of Dublin has increased greatly since these areas were planted so their preservation as recreational/touristic/scenic areas is more important than ever.

jman0

I think it was a misguided policy of Coillte to have planted those trees in the first place.
Felling them is one step toward correcting that mistake.
It should probably be done without delay as their presense on our hillsides makes it less likely that a properly managed and considered forest (mixed forest) will take it's place.
Once the trees are gone and those hillsides look like hell, then maybe a pubic demand/consensus will emerge for replanting.

Drapper

jman0 wrote:

Once the trees are gone and those hillsides look like hell, then maybe a pubic demand/consensus will emerge for replanting.

yes but it will take c.50 years for some of the trees type to mature again! and the amenity will be gone!

........... election coming! make it an issue!

jman0

Drapper wrote:

yes but it will take c.50 years for some of the trees type to mature again! and the amenity will be gone!

........... election coming! make it an issue!

But 50 years is nuthing to a tree.
That's the problem here, we are thinking in too short a time frame.
It's probably exactly why they choose those particular species of pine, they grow fast.
Instead of thinking 100-200 years down the road, were only looking at 30-50 years. That is no way to operate a forestry policy.

BeardyGit

jman0 wrote:

But 50 years is nuthing to a tree.
That's the problem here, we are thinking in too short a time frame.
It's probably exactly why they choose those particular species of pine, they grow fast.
Instead of thinking 100-200 years down the road, were only looking at 30-50 years. That is no way to operate a forestry policy.

May I ask what your experience in the field of outdoor pursuits and forestry management is jman0, to allow me temper my response to your 'contribution' with a suitable measure of scathing criticism for your pointless 'textbook' input.

I'm curious to know whether or not you're simply regurgitating something your geography teacher spewed in the past or if you perhaps have some real insight into the management and proven strategy of a successful, state co-ordinated, self funding and environmentally sound forestry operation.

Johnny Jukebox

jman0 wrote:

But 50 years is nuthing to a tree.
That's the problem here, we are thinking in too short a time frame.
It's probably exactly why they choose those particular species of pine, they grow fast.
Instead of thinking 100-200 years down the road, were only looking at 30-50 years. That is no way to operate a forestry policy.

You're missing the point entirely. My point is that while the Coillte land around major urban centers was *originally* planted for commercial foresty, it should now be managed as a recreational resource. The reason being that given the huge population growth and the associated interest in outdoor pursuits, it is much more valuable to the state as a recreational facility than an agricultural venture.

It doesnt matter a damn what type of trees are there now; what matters is that the plantations are managed on an ongoing basis as a forest park - this means selective felling, trail maintenance, replanting with appropriate species and park management etc, and not the ground zero clear felling that is happening RIGHT NOW.

jman0

Johnny Jukebox wrote:

You're missing the point entirely. My point is that while the Coillte land around major urban centers was *originally* planted for commercial foresty, it should now be managed as a recreational resource. The reason being that given the huge population growth and the associated interest in outdoor pursuits, it is much more valuable to the state as a recreational facility than an agricultural venture.

It doesnt matter a damn what type of trees are there now; what matters is that the plantations are managed on an ongoing basis as a forest park - this means selective felling, trail maintenance, replanting with appropriate species and park management etc, and not the ground zero clear felling that is happening RIGHT NOW.

Fair point, but why would these forests be more valuable to the state, as a recreational facility opposed to an agricultural one?
What your talking about (forestry management) requires money and resources on an ongoing basis, whereas felling them can produce income.
And in fact, the trees as they are: in straight rows, trees planted very close to one another; is probably better suited as an agricultural resource, than a recreational one. Surely it'd be easier to mass fell these trees than to try and turn it into a healthy forest capable of supporting a diversity of wildlife.
Besides even used for mountain bike trails, don't you find you are mostly restricted to running parellel to the rows of trees?

Morgan

This was covered on RTE news yesterday:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0206/6news_av.html?2216624,null,230