Petition to save forests

Qualitymark

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/help-save-irelands-forests/

Looking for 100k signatures to send a petition to Michael D Higgins to stop the sale of felling in Coillte forests.

paul71

"This will include some of our most valuable native woodlands, wild places and some of the last refuges of our native flora and fauna."


From the site. What native woodlands are included in the proposal? While I am not an expert I believe most if not all the coillte forests are single species non-native plantations which contrary to being a refuge to our "native flora and fauna" could probably be more accurately described described as producing desert conditions for native flora and fauna. To be frank I think anyone interested in the preservation of native flora and fauna would welcome the felling of all non-native plantations.

$kilkenny

Would you not be better off sending it to the taoiseach, the minister for the environment or the current man running coillte itself?
What will higgins do because he sorta cant do alot about it.
And as far as I was away it was the sale of the forests for X amount of years, I heard 80 perhaps. So maybe not forever.

Maudi

Qualitymark wrote: »

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/help-save-irelands-forests/

Looking for 100k signatures to send a petition to Michael D Higgins to stop the sale of felling in Coillte forests.

he wouldnt stop the chops to the arts..he wont stop the chops to the trees..

Maudi

paul71 wrote: »

"This will include some of our most valuable native woodlands, wild places and some of the last refuges of our native flora and fauna."


From the site. What native woodlands are included in the proposal? While I am not an expert I believe most if not all the coillte forests are single species non-native plantations which contrary to being a refuge to our "native flora and fauna" could probably be more accurately described described as producing desert conditions for native flora and fauna. To be frank I think anyone interested in the preservation of native flora and fauna would welcome the felling of all non-native plantations.

as much as i have no time for coillte and as you say non natural tree species...coilltes forests do provide cover for ..badger..fox..native deer and muntjac..untold amounts of insect species..bats..hugh populations of birds..etc..the forests may look empty but believe me they are far from it..then you have walkers.hikers mountainbikers .school groups dont forget the fauna buffs..coillte forests are far from being a "desert"...if the rights are sold you will see hillsides and stands of trees harvested overnight..valleys and glens will be prone to landslides and decimation of flora /fauna extincition and soil erosion to follow streams poisoned...then you will see 'deserts'

paul71

Maudi wrote: »

as much as i have no time for coillte and as you say non natural tree species...coilltes forests do provide cover for ..badger..fox..native deer and muntjac..untold amounts of insect species..bats..hugh populations of birds..etc..the forests may look empty but believe me they are far from it..then you have walkers.hikers mountainbikers .school groups dont forget the fauna buffs..coillte forests are far from being a "desert"...if the rights are sold you will see hillsides and stands of trees harvested overnight..valleys and glens will be prone to landslides and decimation of flora /fauna extincition and soil erosion to follow streams poisoned...then you will see 'deserts'

Completely untrue, the rights will be sold in accordance with sustainable forestry practice, ie. trees knocked will be replanted much to my annoyance as I would prefer to see hardwood replacements. In addition the presense of single species conifer plantations is a desert which do not support anything like the habitats that you claim. Native species like hare and red squirrel simply do not exist in these plantations. Foxes are much more numerous in agricultural and urban areas which proves the planted forests are a hostile envirionment for them. Deer populations in Wicklow have a far lower density then in the Killarney National park, a Native Deciduous forest. The diversity of Flora is almost non-exsistant when compared to decidous forset and indeed hedgerow habitats in agricultural areas.

Knock every conifer forest in Ireland (which will not happen if the sale happens, btw) and replace them with deciduous on just 20% of the land occupied by conifers and you would probably get a much greater return in terms of native wildlife then these deserts currently support.

Maudi

paul71 wrote: »

Completely untrue, the rights will be sold in accordance with sustainable forestry practice, ie. trees knocked will be replanted much to my annoyance as I would prefer to see hardwood replacements. In addition the presense of single species conifer plantations is a desert which do not support anything like the habitats that you claim. Native species like hare and red squirrel simply do not exist in these plantations. Foxes are much more numerous in agricultural and urban areas which proves the planted forests are a hostile envirionment for them. Deer populations in Wicklow have a far lower density then in the Killarney National park, a Native Deciduous forest. The diversity of Flora is almost non-exsistant when compared to decidous forset and indeed hedgerow habitats in agricultural areas.

Knock every conifer forest in Ireland (which will not happen if the sale hapsupens, btw) and replace them with deciduous on just 20% of the land occupied by conifers and you would probably get a much greater return in terms of native wildlife then th deserts currently support.

sustainable forestry practice is open to interpretation to whoever "buys"the rights..maybe in some la la land far away foresters cuddle and plant new trees as they chop old ones down..here ..whole hillsides will be raized in one swoop..ps.you obviously dont get out much if you think the forests are empty.

Qualitymark

I agree that we need more deciduous forests. Don't know that it's likely that any get-rich-quick merchants who might buy up the right to fell Coillte's forests (both deciduous and conifer) would rush to plant them with the oak and the ash and the bonny rowan tree, though.

Incidentally, I've been told that the red squirrels actually thrive in coniferous woodlands, and grey squirrels don't.

paul71

Maudi wrote: »

sustainable forestry practice is open to interpretation to whoever "buys"the rights..maybe in some la la land far away foresters cuddle and plant new trees as they chop old ones down..here ..whole hillsides will be raized in one swoop..ps.you obviously dont get out much if you think the forests are empty.

I obviously spend a lot more time in them and know a lot more about them then you do if you cannot discuss or understand why biodiversity in native broadleaf forest is much greater then in the barren single species acid poluted and leached soil of single species conifer forests.

That far way land you seem to think of is in fact Ireland, and the entire European Union. Sustainable forestery has a log history all over Europe, and in Switzerland (where one of the prime interested parties come from).

If you think you are correct show me an example of what you are talking about happening in Europe anytime in the 50 years, please just show me 1 example!

ford2600

I agree with @paul71 that we should have a greater mix of native trees in plantations, which of course would have to be benefical to native mammals etc.
However the spruce woods I mountain bike in, and the woods I own(a mix of ash and spruce) are alive with deer.

Hare is also present in the higher section of woodlands. I see red squirell and pine marten only every so often.

I don't think desert is the correct term, but I agree there is a better way.

Maudi

im not disagreeing with you about the bio diversity difference .of course broad leaf sustains more life..im however disagreeing about conifer plantations being a desert.i spend a lot of time in both and conifer forests harbour all sorts of creatures..i also have an issue with whos behind the proposed logging..a tad shady of an individual to be charged with looking after our natural resources.sticky fingers and and and al dat.

periodictable

Total rubbish.
Red squirrel loves lodgepole and spruce cones. My plantations, mostly coniferous but with a decent mix of other trees support pine marten, red squirrel, kestrel, hen harrier, otter, stoat, badger, fox and I suspect that red deer have begun to visit.
The shelter from the conifers affords the possibility for broadleaves to escape the biting west winds and grow, so oak is growing 60 cm/year, and aspen no longer suffers from windsnap.
5000 years ago the west of Ireland was covered with native oak and scots pine. The climate changed, and coupled with man's efforts the forests suffered. Were we to follow your suggestion and replace existing conifer plantations with native broadleaves we'd have sally, rowan and alder mixes with oak of dubious form,wonderful for wildlife but not sustainable for those who make their livelihood from the land. The forests you envisage will grow majestically on the best land but try getting that from a farmer. Growing quality broadleaves (because surely you don't want to replace coniferous plantations with broadleaves of simply to benefit native flora/fauna?)is not possible on most of the soil currently occupied by conifers.
The best way to sustain native flora/fauna is to expand hedgerows within new plantations, by up to 20m each side of the hedge and to concentrate native trees planting there. Sheltered areas and areas of good soil on the rest of the site should be earmarked for native trees. A beefing up of hedgerows on farms would help significantly.

paul71

periodictable wrote: »

Total rubbish.
Red squirrel loves lodgepole and spruce cones. My plantations, mostly coniferous but with a decent mix of other trees support pine marten, red squirrel, kestrel, hen harrier, otter, stoat, badger, fox and I suspect that red deer have begun to visit..

Strange, first you say my post is rubbish and then you try to prove it by saying your plantation has a decent mix of trees, when I clearly state the issue with biodivestity is single species plantations. I suggest you read more closely before posting. Also I dispute the fact that the forests you describe were native to Ireland 5,000 years ago, what you are describing are Scottish native forests.

The point remains and is actually supported by your post that the Coillte forests are little more then a commercial crop on a 40 year cycle as opposed to tillage which is on a 1 year cycle and offer about as much in terms of habitat to native wildlife as commercial tillage land with hedgerows do. If it makes commercial sense for this crop to be harvested by sub-contractors rather than a semi-state body then there is no reason that this should not happen, as long as it is agreed as a part of that commericial contract is that the trees are replanted in accordance with a sustainable regeneration of the state asset. The ecology of the single species forests is an irrelevent and wasted arguement as people would be better served campaigning to have native deciduous forest planted on a smaller proportion of Coillte owned land.

periodictable

paul71 wrote: »

Also I dispute the fact that the forests you describe were native to Ireland 5,000 years ago, what you are describing are Scottish native forests.

Nonsense.
Put your boots on, go to any cutover raised or blanket peat and you will find oak and Scots pine stumps, branches, cones and acorns plus birch and perhaps hazel. Want to explain how it got there?
My single species Sitka plantations have cross bills, jays, squirrels, pine marten and treecreepers living in them. The litter is regularly rooted by badgers, and if you bother to look closely you'll find it teeming with insect life.
If you're so worried about biodiversity, put some money where your mouth is and show us how to do it right.

paul71

The reason your immature deciduous trees need shelter from prevailing winds provided for by Spruce is because you have no preexisting mature deciduous trees that would have existed in mature native forest which preformed that function. These trees did exist 5,000 years ago in native forests and served the propose that you now claim can only be provided by conifers, so your contention that younger deciduous trees would suffer from wind-snap in a fully mature deciduous forest is nonsense.

The litter that you claim is teeming insect life would not be visible to you in a deciduous forest because a deciduous forest has 4 habitable layers, the canopy which is the upper layer of mature trees, the sub-canopy, occupied by younger trees waiting for a gap to open in the canopy, the brush which consists small shrubs with permanent woodstems and the herbaceous layer ie plants that have no permanent stem. The variety of plant life (and fungus) in these layers, and the number and variety of insects, birds and mammals which feed on and shelter in them in a deciduous forest is much more diverse and numerous then a coniferous forest for 2 reasons. The first is light, coniferous forests have a permanent leaf canopy restricting light to the lower layers all year round thus restricting growth there, deciduous forests have a springtime gap before the leaf canopy develops which results in an enormous growth surge in the herbacuous layer. The second reason is the leaf fall, pine needles create acidity in the soil and a resulting leaching of minerals, this creates a hostile envirionment for many native herbs and greatly restricts the types of herbs to acid and low mineral tolerant types, deciduous leaf fall has the exact opposite effect.

I am absolutely certain that your plantation contains the wildlife you claim it does, but I am also certain that it contains no more then arable tillage or pasture land with hedgerows separating the fields.

What puzzles me is your defense of the arguement that cashcrop forests like yours should not be cut and managed in a sustainable way because they support native Flora and Fauna when they clearly do not support anything like the level of wildlife that a deciduous forest would. If people want to wander arround forests and view native wildlife they should ask for dedicated nature reserves devoted to native trees and not seek to restrict the activities of private foresters like you or petition for the preservation of state owned commercial forests on the basis that they are wildlife reserves when they clearly are not.

paul71

Quote
"Put your boots on, go to any cutover raised or blanket peat and you will find oak and Scots pine stumps, branches, cones and acorns plus birch and perhaps hazel. Want to explain how it got there?"
Quote

As to explaining why Scots Pine are present in bogs, sure why not. Scots Pine where here prior to a climatic change 7,000 years ago, the warmer milder climate resulted them being out competed by deciduous trees and they became extinct. This climate change was not as marked further north in Scotland and they survived there. Since the same climate conditions prevail today there is no way that Scots pine can be considered native therefore your point does not hold water.

As for the presence of acorns, birch and hazel the bogs I am not sure why you would ask me to explain the presence of deciduous species in bogs they are after all the native species which I am referring too.

periodictable

paul71 wrote: »

Quote
As to explaining why Scots Pine are present in bogs, sure why not. Scots Pine where here prior to a climatic change 7,000 years ago, the warmer milder climate resulted them being out competed by deciduous trees and they became extinct. This climate change was not as marked further north in Scotland and they survived there. Since the same climate conditions prevail today there is no way that Scots pine can be considered native therefore your point does not hold water.

You're a font of rubbish.

"The first humans arrived around 9,000 years ago (7,000 BC). By this time the island was predominantly covered in a blanket of woodland. Oak and Elm were well established, with Scots Pine growing on the lower slopes of some uplands. There were two major woodland types namely, mature deciduous Oak Woods in the lowlands and valleys with an abundance of ferns, mosses and liverworts, and the Pine Forests on poorer soils with ling heather, grasses and bracken occurring in the ground layer. Some birch woodlands would have also existed on poorer soils. Other species such as Rowan would have flourished in natural openings in the forest canopy, along with whitebeam, holly, ivy and honeysuckle. These forests were home to animals, some of which are extinct in Ireland today, such as brown bear, wolf and boar, while others, such as fox, pine marten and stoat, still occur. The forests covered most of Ireland apart from exposed coastal areas, lake edges and the more exposed mountain tops. Alder and ash were still uncommon in Ireland 8,500 years ago but they expanded to become common around 500 years and 2,000 years later respectively.
These early inhabitants were Mesolithic hunters, fishers and gatherers, and they had little discernible impact on the forests. However, around 6,000 years ago the forests started to slowly disappear from parts of the country, particularly in the west and the south midlands. It is not fully understood why these early forests started to decline but scientists believe that two main factors may have been the cause - the growth of blanket bogs and the development of farming. The growth of the blanket bogs began approximately 6,000 years ago (4,000BC) and coincided with forest clearance by early Neolithic farmers, to accommodate tillage and pasture. As farming techniques developed through prehistory, and with the advent of iron tools in the later prehistoric period, the process of clearing Ireland‟s forests continued. However, the picture is not simply one of land-clearance – pollen profiles for the prehistoric period show cycles of land clearance coupled in many cases with recovery of forests and by the start of the first millennium AD much of Ireland was still covered with forest.
For reasons that are still unclear, it appears that some tree species declined drastically in the early centuries of the first millennium AD. Elm had been in decline since 3,000 BC, probably due to a disease that only affected Elm, and had virtually disappeared by the 7th century AD. By this stage too, the early law tracts indicate that the great woods were now confined to marginal land and upland areas. The general picture from these texts is of woods and copses, very often privately owned, whose resources were limited and needed careful protection by the law. Scots Pine also suffered a serious decline towards the end of the first millennium and may have been extinct by the 12th century.
As the population increased over the following centuries, the demand for timber also increased and the exploitation intensified under the Anglo-Normans and, later, successive English monarchs. Nevertheless, there were extensive forests in Ireland before 1600. However, these forests were largely gone by 1800."

That's from the Dept of Agriculture website.

I suggest you get talking with real foresters and maybe read some books, notably Prof Frank Mitchell's "Shell Guide To Reading The Irish Landscape".
People like you who obviously <mod snip> do a tremendous disservice to forestry and trees.

robp

paul71 wrote: »

Quote
"Put your boots on, go to any cutover raised or blanket peat and you will find oak and Scots pine stumps, branches, cones and acorns plus birch and perhaps hazel. Want to explain how it got there?"
Quote

As to explaining why Scots Pine are present in bogs, sure why not. Scots Pine where here prior to a climatic change 7,000 years ago, the warmer milder climate resulted them being out competed by deciduous trees and they became extinct. This climate change was not as marked further north in Scotland and they survived there. Since the same climate conditions prevail today there is no way that Scots pine can be considered native therefore your point does not hold water.

As for the presence of acorns, birch and hazel the bogs I am not sure why you would ask me to explain the presence of deciduous species in bogs they are after all the native species which I am referring too.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your point about selling off harvesting rights but there is a wealth of evidence to suggest Scots pine would continue to grow in Ireland continuously if there was no human intervention. For instance 9th century Brehon law texts refer to pine as a tree of 'noble' status. From 7,000 years ago it was in constant decline but it was here till around 1000 years ago. There are even stories from this period of monastic builders spending days in woods of Connacht searching for pine and only managing to find it through divine intervention. No doubt this reflects the decline of pine. There are even claims of tiny stands surviving till the 17th cen based on written sources. I see no reason why it doesn't deserve native status.

Qualitymark

robp wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your point about selling off harvesting rights but there is a wealth of evidence to suggest Scots pine would continue to grow in Ireland continuously if there was no human intervention. For instance 9th century Brehon law texts refer to pine as a tree of 'noble' status. From 7,000 years ago it was in constant decline but it was here till around 1000 years ago. There are even stories from this period of monastic builders spending days in woods of Connacht searching for pine and only managing to find it through divine intervention. No doubt this reflects the decline of pine. There are even claims of tiny stands surviving till the 17th cen based on written sources. I see no reason why it doesn't deserve native status.

But the conifers commonly grown by Coillte aren't Scots pine (the 'Scots' really meaning Irish, as this is the ultimate Irish native tree). They're Sitka spruce, which grows fantastically fast and is great for producing oxygen; less great in that its growth acidifies the soil and pollutes the streams and lakes, and its roots disturb megalithic remains where it's grown.

robp

Qualitymark wrote: »

But the conifers commonly grown by Coillte aren't Scots pine (the 'Scots' really meaning Irish, as this is the ultimate Irish native tree). They're Sitka spruce, which grows fantastically fast and is great for producing oxygen; less great in that its growth acidifies the soil and pollutes the streams and lakes, and its roots disturb megalithic remains where it's grown.

True but all trees damage archaeology. There is no problem if the trees aren't planted so close to the site.

There is no doubt that the coniferous plantations of Coillte has some ecological benefit for things like deer, hen harriers and pine martens that would struggle in pasture land. So speaking of deserts is a bit relative but if they were mixed plantations it would be in a magnitude more. Additional, ancient natural Irish woodland like Killarney or where ever are of a magnitude of a magnitude more. So I would empathise a spectrum rather then a black and white issue.