CONIFERS in Ireland?

Roger Buck

Questions from someone who knows NOTHING about forestry.

I'll start by saying I was very grateful to SILVAMAN for saying this in another thread:

SILVAMAN wrote: »

The first stika spruce sent to these islands was by plant collector David Douglas in the 1830s and it was planted in Curraghmore Co.Waterford. It is still there and the size of the tree bears no relation to the cropped Sitka that are harvested each year.
He refers to the Irish landscape and its apparent destruction by Sitka-that's a highly subjective point of view. The same argument can be made of anything that man puts on the land be it roads, houses or wind turbines-ultimately it's all in the eye of the beholder.

The reason SS is so successful is due to a number of factors:

1. It has a relatively low nutrient demand.
2. The land available for initial afforestation in Ireland tended to be marginal for agriculture and carried no trees save perhaps the occasional sally bush or stunted thorn.
3.SS tolerates exposure extremely well. Most other trees including native trees cannot grow properly on exposed sites.
4.Broadleaves such as Oak and Ash do best on the finest soils which are currently underagriculture. Can one seriously expect people to grow trees on sites unsuited to them, and in theprocess produce an inferior product?
5. The native genetic pool of broadleaves is questionable, with crooked stems. Why? The best trees were in olden times used and the rubbish trees left.

There are trials under way aimed at producing trees of better form-Ellen O'Connor of Teagasc has promising trials of improved birch under-way and some will be available for sale next year.

The widespread planting has facilitated the revival and spread of out native pine marten, and as a consequence, it now preys on the non-native grey squirrel which adversely affects the native red squirrel. Young sitka plantations provide cover for many birds and are a favourite hunting ground of the hen harrier.

There has to be more attention to diversifying species, especially because of the huge risk of disease. Our native tree list is tiny and not sustainable for forestry. The aim should be to use alder birch and willow to protect our floodplains and waterways. Sitka should remain the main wood producer, but western red cedar, scots pine(native tree) and tsuga ought to be more widely planted. Spruce plantations ought to be thinned more heavily and earlier to facilitate light entry thereby promoting a ground layer, and large areas of birch and mountain ash and hazel ought to be established to facilitate the spread of these trees which will then occupy these spaces created within the thinned forest plantations. Heavily thinned conifer plantations are superb habitat for woodcock, and woodpecker is spreading westwards due to the increased forest cover. Red squirrel also eat spruce seed, and the forests facilitate the spread of deer.

We ought to augment our native broadleaves with more broadleaves, particularly those in Britain such as hornbeam and lime. Bear in mind that the purists would also demand the removal of beech and sycamore from Ireland...imagine the landscape change then. It is worth noting that sycamore accounts for 60% of the nectar gathered in Europe by bees for honey production.

This social scientist and planner Haughton clearly has no concept of what forestry entails-it's not all black and white. Some mistakes have been made, but huge progress too, and many Forest Service Inspectors and staff ought to be commended for slowly changing forestry and it is also up to the registered foresters to thoughtfully design plantations to something other than SS/Larch with 3 rows of birch around the edges, and the landowner ought to accept that perhaps 10% of the plantation ought to be regarded as a long term biodiverse and self sustaining unit.

I say I'm grateful because I like these conifers.

I should also say I'm an an American in Ireland. And I prefer it here in virtually every way. Except the relative lack of trees.

I really want to see these new forests. Indeed, even though I know nothing about forestry, I dream of buying some land some day and planting - NOT to fell. Something I could enjoy in my old age and leave to future generations. At the moment, it's just a dream though …

Still, knowing very little as I do, I'd want to go for the conifers. I'd see something before I die in maybe 30 years. Sitka Spruce seems to grow fast. I wonder how much growth I'd see in thirty years?

I understand the hostility to a boring, unhealthy monoculture. But I'm afraid I don't understand why Ireland needs to be limited to only its few original species.

So I'm grateful for what SILVAMAN said above.

And I'd be grateful for any more comments/thoughts on this issue. Thanks!

Capercaillie

Roger Buck wrote: »

Questions from someone who knows NOTHING about forestry.

I'll start by saying I was very grateful to SILVAMAN for saying this in another thread:



I say I'm grateful because I like these conifers.

I should also say I'm an an American in Ireland. And I prefer it here in virtually every way. Except the relative lack of trees.

I really want to see these new forests. Indeed, even though I know nothing about forestry, I dream of buying some land some day and planting - NOT to fell. Something I could enjoy in my old age and leave to future generations. At the moment, it's just a dream though …

Still, knowing very little as I do, I'd want to go for the conifers. I'd see something before I die in maybe 30 years. Sitka Spruce seems to grow fast. I wonder how much growth I'd see in thirty years?

I understand the hostility to a boring, unhealthy monoculture. But I'm afraid I don't understand why Ireland needs to be limited to only its few original species.

So I'm grateful for what SILVAMAN said above.

And I'd be grateful for any more comments/thoughts on this issue. Thanks!

If you want to plant and NOT to fell, why would you plant an alien non-native species that is virtually useless for wildlife and has destroys vast area of uplands, polluted waterways, exterminated upland species?
Why not plant native species which help native wildlife and help protect waterways?

SILVAMAN

Capercaillie wrote: »

If you want to plant and NOT to fell, why would you plant an alien non-native species that is virtually useless for wildlife and has destroys vast area of uplands, polluted waterways, exterminated upland species?
Why not plant native species which help native wildlife and help protect waterways?

The trees have exterminated nothing.
Since water testing in so called "acid sensitive " areas, a designation which was lazily and hurriedly concocted, it now appears that planting a belt of broadleaves, of ANY kind, safely removes most phosphates from the water which causes problems.
Trees in themselves rarely cause acidity;rather it's the scrubbing of dust from the air which is then washed into streams and causes a temporary 24-26hr increase in acidity, that causes problems.
So the best solution is to probably leave the poorer peats which are an interesting ecosystem, and to substantially increase buffer strips and increase the mixture type of the plantation.
While you're at it, remove all beech and sycamore-horrible alien trees;)-but how about replacing with Nothofagus another horrible alien, which h can, in places produce quality timber, as well as play host to 5 times as many insects as common beech?
Yep, plantation forestry has it's problems, but extremist opinions on either side do nobody any favours.

fits

I don't mind conifers at all. But it would be nice to have them thinner to let some light in so that other plants and things can grow under the canopy. ( and the trees themselves can regenerate too). Also mixed stands are much more pleasant to be in.

Capercaillie

SILVAMAN wrote: »

The trees have exterminated nothing.
Since water testing in so called "acid sensitive " areas, a designation which was lazily and hurriedly concocted, it now appears that planting a belt of broadleaves, of ANY kind, safely removes most phosphates from the water which causes problems.
Trees in themselves rarely cause acidity;rather it's the scrubbing of dust from the air which is then washed into streams and causes a temporary 24-26hr increase in acidity, that causes problems.
So the best solution is to probably leave the poorer peats which are an interesting ecosystem, and to substantially increase buffer strips and increase the mixture type of the plantation.
While you're at it, remove all beech and sycamore-horrible alien trees;)-but how about replacing with Nothofagus another horrible alien, which h can, in places produce quality timber, as well as play host to 5 times as many insects as common beech?
Yep, plantation forestry has it's problems, but extremist opinions on either side do nobody any favours.

Mono-culture of stika spruce have destroyed populations of Red Grouse, Curlew, Golden Plover, Dunlin, Hen Harrier.

Birdnuts

Roger Buck wrote: »

Questions from someone who knows NOTHING about forestry.

I'll start by saying I was very grateful to SILVAMAN for saying this in another thread:



I say I'm grateful because I like these conifers.

I should also say I'm an an American in Ireland. And I prefer it here in virtually every way. Except the relative lack of trees.

I really want to see these new forests. Indeed, even though I know nothing about forestry, I dream of buying some land some day and planting - NOT to fell. Something I could enjoy in my old age and leave to future generations. At the moment, it's just a dream though …

Still, knowing very little as I do, I'd want to go for the conifers. I'd see something before I die in maybe 30 years. Sitka Spruce seems to grow fast. I wonder how much growth I'd see in thirty years?

I understand the hostility to a boring, unhealthy monoculture. But I'm afraid I don't understand why Ireland needs to be limited to only its few original species.

So I'm grateful for what SILVAMAN said above.

And I'd be grateful for any more comments/thoughts on this issue. Thanks!

What type of land do you want to plant?? Sitka spruce already dominates in terms of plantings in this country so I'm not sure if adding more adds much to the country's forestry assets. Your choice will depend on the type of land you intend to plant and over 30 years there are many species that will produce a wood/forest that will be pleasing to the eye and of benefit to biodiversity(obviously in terms of the latter, the more native species you have the better).

Reindeer

Capercaillie wrote: »

Mono-culture of stika spruce have destroyed populations of Red Grouse, Curlew, Golden Plover, Dunlin, Hen Harrier.

Got any sources? I'm curious myself.

Birdnuts

Reindeer wrote: »

Got any sources? I'm curious myself.

These birds require open heathery moorland for breeding/feeding. When this habitat is replaced by conifer plantations, obviously these species will more or less vanish.

Capercaillie

Birdnuts wrote: »

These birds require open heathery moorland for breeding/feeding. When this habitat is replaced by conifer plantations, obviously these species will more or less vanish.

x2
For Red Grouse
Causes of this loss of habitat:
Afforestation Particularly increases in marginal, i.e. upland areas, being planted has led to a direct loss of suitable habitat for Red Grouse.

Fragmentation of moorland: caused by afforestation has led to some Red Grouse populations becoming isolated and dying out as they are largely a sedentary species occupying relatively fixed home ranges.

Forests acting as refuges for predators: such as foxes, corvids. Increased predation of grouse.

Reindeer

While I understand your points, you still do not cite any surveys or scientific research. This is all anecdotal, and it becomes less convincing in the light of the fact that Ireland has the second least forested land mass of Europe, with far less forest than it once had. Without any real evidence other than empirical, I would more likely point the finger at folks removing forested land for firewood or building(boats or homes or otherwise) than I would blame it on Sitka Spruce alone. The spruce is more of a symptom and not a cause. There is still quite a lot of open moorland in this country, of which I see far more sheep on than spruce... In such a case, the spruce would seem more a literal scape goat than a significant cause.

Capercaillie

Reindeer wrote: »

While I understand your points, you still do not cite any surveys or scientific research. This is all anecdotal, and it becomes less convincing in the light of the fact that Ireland has the second least forested land mass of Europe, with far less forest than it once had. Without any real evidence other than empirical, I would more likely point the finger at folks removing forested land for firewood or building(boats or homes or otherwise) than I would blame it on Sitka Spruce alone. The spruce is more of a symptom and not a cause. There is still quite a lot of open moorland in this country, of which I see far more sheep on than spruce... In such a case, the spruce would seem more a literal scape goat than a significant cause.

Red Grouse declines are multi-factorial. Overgrazing mainly by sheep degrade moorland/bogs for grouse. Blanket burning by farmers damages moorland/bogs by destroying habitat and when during breeding season it kills birds. Widespread turf extraction both legal/illegal has also decimated Grouse habitat.

I can't post links insufficient posts. All conservation groups in Ireland: BWI, Irish Red Grouse Association, Golden Eagle trust, Irish Grey Partridge Conservation trust, Hen Harrier Ireland agree on the damage that mono-cultures of Sitka Spruce have done to Irish Red Grouse populations.

Capercaillie

Reindeer wrote: »

While I understand your points, you still do not cite any surveys or scientific research. This is all anecdotal, and it becomes less convincing in the light of the fact that Ireland has the second least forested land mass of Europe, with far less forest than it once had. Without any real evidence other than empirical, I would more likely point the finger at folks removing forested land for firewood or building(boats or homes or otherwise) than I would blame it on Sitka Spruce alone. The spruce is more of a symptom and not a cause. There is still quite a lot of open moorland in this country, of which I see far more sheep on than spruce... In such a case, the spruce would seem more a literal scape goat than a significant cause.

Red Grouse declines are multi-factorial. Overgrazing mainly by sheep degrades moorland/bogs for grouse. Blanket burning by farmers damages moorland/bogs by destroying habitat and when during breeding season it kills birds. Widespread turf extraction both legal/illegal has also decimated Grouse habitat.

I can't post links insufficient posts. All conservation groups in Ireland: BWI, Irish Red Grouse Association, Golden Eagle trust, Irish Grey Partridge Conservation trust, Hen Harrier Ireland agree on the damage that mono-cultures of Sitka Spruce have done to Irish Red Grouse populations.

Reindeer

It's difficult to buy it. Less than a small fraction of a fraction of our moorland is planted with spruce.

I think you've answered your own statement - the major cause is farming and grazing.

I have nothing against planting native species. I use them often as renewable sources for firewood and timber on a very large estate that I manage our forestry on. And I do believe it is a good idea for the native wild life. However, I also believe we need to place blame where the blame lies.

Capercaillie

Reindeer wrote: »

It's difficult to buy it. Less than a small fraction of a fraction of our moorland is planted with spruce.

I think you've answered your own statement - the major cause is farming and grazing.

I have nothing against planting native species. I use them often as renewable sources for firewood and timber on a very large estate that I manage our forestry on. And I do believe it is a good idea for the native wild life. However, I also believe we need to place blame where the blame lies.

The last remaining populations of Red Grouse are being threatened with conifer plantations. Even in the Hen Harrier SPA's that are supposed to be optimal moorland/bog habitat the percentage of non-native conifer plantations is over 53% and Harrier numbers are decreasing in the SPA's as a result.

greysides

Capercaillie wrote: »

I can't post links insufficient posts.

Needs 50 posts and account > 10 days old. You're nearly there.

Roger Buck

My gratitude for _all_ responses. No time to say much yet, but will quickly clarify this:

Birdnuts wrote: »

What type of land do you want to plant?? Sitka spruce already dominates in terms of plantings in this country so I'm not sure if adding more adds much to the country's forestry assets. Your choice will depend on the type of land you intend to plant and over 30 years there are many species that will produce a wood/forest that will be pleasing to the eye and of benefit to biodiversity(obviously in terms of the latter, the more native species you have the better).

Really, so far, as I said, it's still a dream. And I know nothing. Complete ignoramus am I. About land types, everything.

However, I wouldn't want one of those awful, dense, dark Sitka Spruce monocultures - but a mixture of conifers that would achieve a good size in 30 years.

So I'm curious what size might be achieved in this kind of timescale ...

SILVAMAN

Birdnuts wrote: »

These birds require open heathery moorland for breeding/feeding. When this habitat is replaced by conifer plantations, obviously these species will more or less vanish.

Several hundred acres of open blanket bog near me were and still are mostly unplanted. Red grouse was common up to 30 years ago. It disappeared. The land was not planted. I blame it on the restrictions on burning the mountain which allowed the heather to grow waist high. Regular burning would have kept in check and encouraged the young heather shoots that grouse thrive on.

http://www.nargc.ie/habitat-conservation/heather-management-within-an-sac-by-burning---the-first-steps.aspx

Birdnuts

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Several hundred acres of open blanket bog near me were and still are mostly unplanted. Red grouse was common up to 30 years ago. It disappeared. The land was not planted. I blame it on the restrictions on burning the mountain which allowed the heather to grow waist high. Regular burning would have kept in check and encouraged the young heather shoots that grouse thrive on.

http://www.nargc.ie/habitat-conservation/heather-management-within-an-sac-by-burning---the-first-steps.aspx

I'm not saying thats the only problem they face. Overgrazing of heather on commonage's during the 80's and 90's was a major factor too and then you have the devastation meted out to the Midland bogs by the activities of Bord Na Mona.
To inject a bit of positivity here, down the road from my place in North Mayo, the Grouse densities around Ballycroy and Rossport have trebled in the past decade thanx to the easing of commange grazing pressures by agreement between local farmers and the NPWS

timfromtang

When i was in university studyin this forestry lark we were taken on a field trip somewhere in the slieve bloom mountains, one of the highlights for me was a stand of sitka spruce I recall Martin saying that they were planted in 1905, 3 of us (largish lads all over 6') attempted to join hands around the trunk of one and failed. the place was full of light (for a forest) there was green strands extending down in hanging trails from high above our heads, There was a wide variety of undergrowth and much diversity on the forest floor, and to be honest it felt as there was a cathedral roof in each tree (in both timber and atmosphere) I too LOVE the Sitka spruce, a spectacular tree, however i fear that in this country we are using the tree rather badly and could definately do better.
tim

Capercaillie

Reindeer wrote: »

While I understand your points, you still do not cite any surveys or scientific research. This is all anecdotal, and it becomes less convincing in the light of the fact that Ireland has the second least forested land mass of Europe, with far less forest than it once had. Without any real evidence other than empirical, I would more likely point the finger at folks removing forested land for firewood or building(boats or homes or otherwise) than I would blame it on Sitka Spruce alone. The spruce is more of a symptom and not a cause. There is still quite a lot of open moorland in this country, of which I see far more sheep on than spruce... In such a case, the spruce would seem more a literal scape goat than a significant cause.

The current
total area of peat soils afforested is estimated at
43.5% of the total area afforested (301,770 ha
broken down into 218,850 ha on blanket peat,
74,080 ha on Basin peat and 8,840 ha on
cutaway peat).

http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/final%20version%20with%20UCD%20Logo.pdf
Irish Red Grouse habitat is primarily Bog (Blanket and raised). 43.5% of those peatlands habitat destroyed primarily by non-native conifer (Stika mainly).

Birdnuts

timfromtang wrote: »

When i was in university studyin this forestry lark we were taken on a field trip somewhere in the slieve bloom mountains, one of the highlights for me was a stand of sitka spruce I recall Martin saying that they were planted in 1905, 3 of us (largish lads all over 6') attempted to join hands around the trunk of one and failed. the place was full of light (for a forest) there was green strands extending down in hanging trails from high above our heads, There was a wide variety of undergrowth and much diversity on the forest floor, and to be honest it felt as there was a cathedral roof in each tree (in both timber and atmosphere) I too LOVE the Sitka spruce, a spectacular tree, however i fear that in this country we are using the tree rather badly and could definately do better.
tim

Yeah - I've been to that spot in the blooms and those trees are very impressive. Just goes to show what a different planting style can achieve in terms of better outcomes.

timfromtang

Capercaillie wrote: »

Irish Red Grouse habitat is primarily Bog (Blanket and raised). 43.5% of those peatlands habitat destroyed primarily by non-native conifer (Stika mainly).

I notice on page 7 two maps,
two distribution maps of red grouse
the top from 68-72, the bottom 2006-2008
i notice a difference
a "hole in the middle" so to speak in the later map
the hole appears to be in the middle
what i wonder could be displacing red grouse over a large area of the midlands?
Sitka spruce ......
surely not as it is seldom planted here due to its frost sensitivity
indeed i am not aware of a massive change of land use in this area relating to trees of any sort, (broadleaves and norway spruce planted on farms in small parcels excepted perhaps)
I am aware of a large black desert that can be clearly seen as an orange stain on very high altitude photograps of our lovely green island.
I wonder if indeed the loss of this habitat of red grouse (peat extraction for electricity etc) might not be significant???

just some things i notice

i notice with a wry smile on page 25 the first item listed in "challenges to red grouse conservation and management" is ...........
wait for it..........
oh yes
Policy and Legislation
ohhh now there is a surprise,
but perhaps i am being a little ungenerous as there are often the best of intentions behind such policies.


they go on to list the land uses that peatland is put to
agriculture, commercial forestry, wind energy, peat extraction, leisure and tourism
in the agriculture section we hear about the land use, and that the forest service no longer approves of grant aided afforestation on SAC sites

now we come to the sentence which you quoted which is in the section headed Forestry on page 26
in order i presume to back up a previous post in which you claim.................

"Mono-culture of stika spruce have destroyed populations of Red Grouse, Curlew, Golden Plover, Dunlin, Hen Harrier. "

so the sentences you quoted from the document ??? what do they mean

these ones.....

"The current
total area of peat soils afforested is estimated at
43.5% of the total area afforested (301,770 ha
broken down into 218,850 ha on blanket peat,
74,080 ha on Basin peat and 8,840 ha on
cutaway peat). "

your link to the document... which i have had to remove in order to post this (new user)

and then this DOOZY "Irish Red Grouse habitat is primarily Bog (Blanket and raised). 43.5% of those peatlands habitat destroyed primarily by non-native conifer (Stika mainly)."

what do they mean???

lets see the whole paragraph shall we???

In theROI, forestry makes up 10% of the landscape, 9% of which is primarily coniferous, with extensive conversion to short-rotation conifer plantations since the 1950s. The current total area of peat soils afforested is estimated at 43.5% of the total area afforested (301,770ha broken down into 218,850 ha on blanket peat, 74,080 ha on Basin peat and 8,840 ha on cutaway peat). There is also a decrease in the rate of
afforestation on peat, with an estimated 9,000 ha planted on peat in 1990, declining to 4,000 ha planted on peat in 2005.

lets read it together carefully
so the first sentence you quoted
taken in context would appear to say that of all of the 9% of the landscape that is aforested with conifers, 43.5% is on peat soils.
and later on it goes on to say that the rate of aforestation on peat is declining and has been since the 1990's

lets remember the elephant in the cupboard (the big black desert created by us (we all use electricity right)) perhaps the souls who wrote this document were sending off on an a bit of a goose chase, in case we notice the elephant??

nowhere in the document do i find mention of peat extraction except briefly in the list of land uses, that have led to habitat loss or fragmentation of the red grouse population

there is no section heading as agriculture, commercial forestry, and even leisure and tourism get.

its a BIG elephant

lets have a look at the maps again

nah I'm tired

i just want to blame somebody
someone who is already changin their habits (afforestation of peatland is on the decrease) will do, esp cos the already admitted they were wrong..

CMON FOLKS

there is only one big blue ball


We all share it

lets do it right for a change

stop playing the blame game seeking differences, intervening just to be seen to be doing something, and

LOOK AT THE ELEPHANT
its you and its me

lets instead seek solutions, seek agreement, and co-operate rather than compete, we all want to live in a flourishing ecosystem
we can make it so
all of us,



planting trees helps a lot
ticks lots o boxes so to speak

tim


note i removed the link you posted as i am a new user apparently i do not qualify for the privelege of being able to post links until i hit a magic 50 posts, well nearly there............

all the best
tim

timfromtang

oops sent that last a bit quick, before i had finished the document
page 36
"Currently, peatland covers 14% of Ireland"

doin me sums
9% of our land is aforested with conifers, 43.5% of this is on peat, that would be ......3.915% of our land area... now 14% is peatland, so conifers represent roughly 2/7ths of the total habitat loss for the red grouse, but this is on the decrease, are we to attribute the other 5/7ths to agriculture and uncontrolled burning??
or perhaps something else is consuming our bogs???
oooh i wonder whoooo
tim


for a clue look to thank you at the bottom
to the organisations
who.......
oh yes
PAID FOR IT


DUM DUM DUM what a surprise....

SILVAMAN

Birdnuts wrote: »

a different planting style

What?

Birdnuts

SILVAMAN wrote: »

What?

Something more akin to what you get in their native lands ie. more open woods that allow in more light

Capercaillie

timfromtang wrote: »

I notice on page 7 two maps,
two distribution maps of red grouse
the top from 68-72, the bottom 2006-2008
i notice a difference
a "hole in the middle" so to speak in the later map
the hole appears to be in the middle
what i wonder could be displacing red grouse over a large area of the midlands?
Sitka spruce ......
surely not as it is seldom planted here due to its frost sensitivity
indeed i am not aware of a massive change of land use in this area relating to trees of any sort, (broadleaves and norway spruce planted on farms in small parcels excepted perhaps)
I am aware of a large black desert that can be clearly seen as an orange stain on very high altitude photograps of our lovely green island.
I wonder if indeed the loss of this habitat of red grouse (peat extraction for electricity etc) might not be significant???

Curlew, Golden Plover, Dunlin, Hen Harrier. "

so the sentences you quoted from the document ??? what do they mean

these ones.....

"The current
total area of peat soils afforested is estimated at
43.5% of the total area afforested (301,770 ha
broken down into 218,850 ha on blanket peat,
74,080 ha on Basin peat and 8,840 ha on
cutaway peat). "

your link to the document... which i have had to remove in order to post this (new user)

and then this DOOZY "Irish Red Grouse habitat is primarily Bog (Blanket and raised). 43.5% of those peatlands habitat destroyed primarily by non-native conifer (Stika mainly)."

If you read my previous post. I said red grouse declines are multi-factorial. Widespread turf extraction both legal/illegal has also decimated Grouse habitat. Alot of cut-over bogs are planted with conifers instead of being turned back into suitable habitat for moorland birds.

Capercaillie wrote: »

Red Grouse declines are multi-factorial. Overgrazing mainly by sheep degrades moorland/bogs for grouse. Blanket burning by farmers damages moorland/bogs by destroying habitat and when during breeding season it kills birds. Widespread turf extraction both legal/illegal has also decimated Grouse habitat.

.

There is strong pressure at present from IFA/Forestry Companies/Government TD/MEP to lift the restrictions on planting of conifers in SAC/SPA. This will destroy further habitat for Red Grouse and will likely lead to extinction of Hen Harrier. The Slieve Blooms SAC is under threat from new forestry plantations.

timfromtang

Capercaillie wrote: »

If you read my previous post. I said red grouse declines are multi-factorial. Widespread turf extraction both legal/illegal has also decimated Grouse habitat. Alot of cut-over bogs are planted with conifers instead of being turned back into suitable habitat for moorland birds.

There is strong pressure at present from IFA/Forestry Companies/Government TD/MEP to lift the restrictions on planting of conifers in SAC/SPA. This will destroy further habitat for Red Grouse and will likely lead to extinction of Hen Harrier. The Slieve Blooms SAC is under threat from new forestry plantations.

we can agree i think, that it is the behaviour of us humans that is leading to the loss of habitat and other threats to these and many species
is that multi factorial? or is that a single factor?
now there is a question,
please do not feel criticised
i cherish all of the life on this big blue ball we share
now when it comes to the planting of trees i am personally choosy about how i do it, and try to maximise the possible diversity.

however i suggest that the cutting of trees (about 2/3 of the total as far as i can tell) over the last multiple hundreds of years, has had a profound effect on species extinction rates

further i would suggest that it is difficult to identify an activity or action of humans at the moment that does not indirectly or directly harm other life, its habitat, food sources, health etc etc etc

further i would suggest that this might not be a wise move on the part of the human animals, since they depend again directly or indirectly on the other life with which we share this big blue ball

again i point to the elephant

I am as guilty as any here, using electricity as i type, travellin in me car, revvin me chainsaw, i too accept responsibility for the state of the planet as we find it today.

so look to the elephant within, the elephant in our own personal cupboards, and ask, what can i do???
my own explorations started with alternative energy, veggie oil cars etc, then along to ecological building, i chose straw bale (difficult to get right in our damp climate) and have settled at last on planting trees, i do NOT do monocultures however the dept and forestry service may try to make me, tis always easy to sneak in the diversity required for a healthier ecosystem.

given my suggestions above
i further suggest that an altered attitude to other life is a good step towards solving our current problems in living peacfully along with other life, and agreeing to flourish together with it.

there is something i call the fiction
it tells stories about the benefits of lovely profits profits of about how humans are SOOO important, so we trash the place

there is an old saying
your health is your wealth

Dear me i got a bit off track there, please excuse the rant

To my point in reply
do you agree that about 2/7 of the peatland habitat loss you mention is due to plantation forestry for profit?
if so, would you care to estimate the fractions atttributed to peat extraction?

and one final thing,
it is easy to identify "iconic" species and throw a lot of money and effort at their conservation with a broad benefit for the fiction described above as it allows everybody to feel all righteous about we are doing something, or nothing is being done, or the things that are being done are stupid, or whatever, with the broad effect of cancelling out any posible sensible way forward as we poor tax slaves are too busy fighting and looking for folk to blame to see the reality.

I wear a black tie nowadays for the pacific ocean
look for yourself and you will see why
how now will forestry fare worldwide i fear

lets agree, lets seek solutions, lets learn that it is us each of us who is in control of our own think talk and do, lets remember that our hands are not physically tied and whether we choose to do as directed or otherwise each and everything we do think or say comes from within ourselves from our own volition.

again i suggest that planting trees ticks a lot of boxes when it comes to the state of the big blue ball and i agree that it is very poor form if we plant monocultures with the effect of habitat loss and diversity loss etc,
what we are attempting to do here in our forest, is to find a way to make a living from our forest with the approach of maximising diversity, diversity of life within the forest, and diversity of products and benefits for ALL life from the forest.

lets hope it works out eh

all the best
tim

Big Davey

Very interesting reading Tim. I too used to use bio diesel ( my mark 1 Octavia SDI ran very very well on it)
I asked the question a while back as to what our native species were and could we have a win win situation where we have a habitat suitable for our native creatures while making a profit also.
I hope to buy land somewhere between 20 and 40 acres and would be very open to different species and will plant the forest myself over a 3 month period I hope maybe more.
I have looked into eucalyptus but am not prepared to take the risk to be honest.
I am at the start of this journey let's hope it's a good one.

timfromtang wrote: »

we can agree i think, that it is the behaviour of us humans that is leading to the loss of habitat and other threats to these and many species
is that multi factorial? or is that a single factor?
now there is a question,
please do not feel criticised
i cherish all of the life on this big blue ball we share
now when it comes to the planting of trees i am personally choosy about how i do it, and try to maximise the possible diversity.

however i suggest that the cutting of trees (about 2/3 of the total as far as i can tell) over the last multiple hundreds of years, has had a profound effect on species extinction rates

further i would suggest that it is difficult to identify an activity or action of humans at the moment that does not indirectly or directly harm other life, its habitat, food sources, health etc etc etc

further i would suggest that this might not be a wise move on the part of the human animals, since they depend again directly or indirectly on the other life with which we share this big blue ball

again i point to the elephant

I am as guilty as any here, using electricity as i type, travellin in me car, revvin me chainsaw, i too accept responsibility for the state of the planet as we find it today.

so look to the elephant within, the elephant in our own personal cupboards, and ask, what can i do???
my own explorations started with alternative energy, veggie oil cars etc, then along to ecological building, i chose straw bale (difficult to get right in our damp climate) and have settled at last on planting trees, i do NOT do monocultures however the dept and forestry service may try to make me, tis always easy to sneak in the diversity required for a healthier ecosystem.

given my suggestions above
i further suggest that an altered attitude to other life is a good step towards solving our current problems in living peacfully along with other life, and agreeing to flourish together with it.

there is something i call the fiction
it tells stories about the benefits of lovely profits profits of about how humans are SOOO important, so we trash the place

there is an old saying
your health is your wealth

Dear me i got a bit off track there, please excuse the rant

To my point in reply
do you agree that about 2/7 of the peatland habitat loss you mention is due to plantation forestry for profit?
if so, would you care to estimate the fractions atttributed to peat extraction?

and one final thing,
it is easy to identify "iconic" species and throw a lot of money and effort at their conservation with a broad benefit for the fiction described above as it allows everybody to feel all righteous about we are doing something, or nothing is being done, or the things that are being done are stupid, or whatever, with the broad effect of cancelling out any posible sensible way forward as we poor tax slaves are too busy fighting and looking for folk to blame to see the reality.

I wear a black tie nowadays for the pacific ocean
look for yourself and you will see why
how now will forestry fare worldwide i fear

lets agree, lets seek solutions, lets learn that it is us each of us who is in control of our own think talk and do, lets remember that our hands are not physically tied and whether we choose to do as directed or otherwise each and everything we do think or say comes from within ourselves from our own volition.

again i suggest that planting trees ticks a lot of boxes when it comes to the state of the big blue ball and i agree that it is very poor form if we plant monocultures with the effect of habitat loss and diversity loss etc,
what we are attempting to do here in our forest, is to find a way to make a living from our forest with the approach of maximising diversity, diversity of life within the forest, and diversity of products and benefits for ALL life from the forest.

lets hope it works out eh

all the best
tim