Large scale deforestation in Dublin/Wicklow mountains

munkee

Hi, not sure if this is the appropriate forum, and apologies if this is answered already, I couldn't find a post about it.

I was out yesterday around Crone Wood in Wicklow and then came back into town via the Sallygap and past Killakee.

In both locations and generally in the mountains en route, it seems that huge swathes of forest have been removed. I barely recognised certain parts.

Does anyone know why this has occurred? Thanks.

Del2005

munkee wrote: »

Hi, not sure if this is the appropriate forum, and apologies if this is answered already, I couldn't find a post about it.

I was out yesterday around Crone Wood in Wicklow and then came back into town via the Sallygap and past Killakee.

In both locations and generally in the mountains en route, it seems that huge swathes of forest have been removed. I barely recognised certain parts.

Does anyone know why this has occurred? Thanks.

They're commercial forests ready for harvesting.

Carroller16

These forests are all managed by Coillte and are commercial forests where the wood is grown for the wood industry.

http://www.coillte.ie/

munkee

So I guess they can just cut down what and when they like?

Del2005

munkee wrote: »

So I guess they can just cut down what and when they like?

No they harvest their product when it's mature and ready to sell as it'd be stupid to cut it all down before it's ready, but they do thin it out.

Reindeer

munkee wrote: »

So I guess they can just cut down what and when they like?

As said previously, they manage it as a forestry. If not for Coillte, you would be asking the other forum where all the sheep had gone.

ganmo

munkee wrote: »

So I guess they can just cut down what and when they like?

Why do you think they shouldn't?

Nekarsulm

munkee wrote: »

So I guess they can just cut down what and when they like?

Its not de-forestation, its harvesting.
Will be cut and harvested by the owners when the timber reaches maturity.
Despite the wide open landscape, the land is not public parkland.

It will be replanted, and the cycle will begin again.

Usually any broadleaf will be left to continue to grow to old age.
Although on a mountain setting, there is little likelihood of broadleaf species in the first place.

ganmo

during the last gov the local green minister stopped coilte felling trees because it was affecting the 'amenity'

SILVAMAN

ganmo wrote: »

during the last gov the local green minister stopped coilte felling trees because it was affecting the 'amenity'

Amuses me how people worry when mature Sitka are harvested;the same people usually rail against the planting of Sitka. In many ways the growth of conifers is similar to the story of the ugly duckling;)

timfromtang

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Amuses me how people worry when mature Sitka are harvested;the same people usually rail against the planting of Sitka. In many ways the growth of conifers is similar to the story of the ugly duckling;)

Although perhaps you would agree silvaman, that the sitka is hardly "mature" when harvested in irish conditions, a 100 year rotation instead of the current 20-35 year rotations would yield much larger trees.
tim

Melodeon

It's harvested at the size the markets want it though, which appears to be currently set at the maximum size the commercial mills can handle.
It's a bit like killing a bullock at 2 years of age at 500-600kgs, as against leaving him until he's 5 years old and over a tonne.

timfromtang

Melodeon wrote: »

It's harvested at the size the markets want it though, which appears to be currently set at the maximum size the commercial mills can handle.
It's a bit like killing a bullock at 2 years of age at 500-600kgs, as against leaving him until he's 5 years old and over a tonne.

Well perhaps a bit like that with the DISTINCTION that at 1 tonne and 5 years the beef will be TOUGH!

However at 100 years and in excess of 6 meters girth at breast height the Sitka spruce tree's wood has only improved in texture and notably in strength to weight ratio. In my humble opinion we are using the noble Sitka spruce rather badly in this country.

tim

It would take a change in sawmill infrastructure to allow these longer rotations and harvesting of larger older Sitka spruce

Reindeer

In order to get one Sitka Spruce to make it to 100 years, you would need to plant a dozen, maybe two, others as nurses, wind breaks, erosion breaks, and the culled trees slash used as fetilizer and habitat for smaller animals that help fertilise and mature the trees standing, etc etc.

You must cull a certain amount of timber, or else allow mother nature to do so. Nature takes a much longer time to bring a tree to maturity than modern forestry practices, and it is anyone's guess whether that tree will be straight enough to allow for timber, and the forest it makes simply would not be safe by current European standards to allow the public access to.

The argument here is not how we practice forestry, really - it is about how we practice the 'park system'. Granted, when we finally 'inherited' this land a hundred years ago, there was precious little 'parkland' left. So we really couldn't implement it in such a way as, say, America has. But, in order to truly have parks and wildlife, we desperately need to sequester larger patches of land to be professionally managed as a park system. Such a system, by it's nature, can not possibly be semi private or enterprise driven. It must be 100% government driven, for the people and by them.

And good luck with that.

timfromtang

Reindeer wrote: »

In order to get one Sitka Spruce to make it to 100 years, you would need to plant a dozen, maybe two, others as nurses, wind breaks, erosion breaks, and the culled trees slash used as fetilizer and habitat for smaller animals that help fertilise and mature the trees standing, etc etc.

You must cull a certain amount of timber, or else allow mother nature to do so. Nature takes a much longer time to bring a tree to maturity than modern forestry practices, and it is anyone's guess whether that tree will be straight enough to allow for timber, and the forest it makes simply would not be safe by current European standards to allow the public access to.

The argument here is not how we practice forestry, really - it is about how we practice the 'park system'. Granted, when we finally 'inherited' this land a hundred years ago, there was precious little 'parkland' left. So we really couldn't implement it in such a way as, say, America has. But, in order to truly have parks and wildlife, we desperately need to sequester larger patches of land to be professionally managed as a park system. Such a system, by it's nature, can not possibly be semi private or enterprise driven. It must be 100% government driven, for the people and by them.

And good luck with that.

I do not disagree Reindeer, although i suggest that a 100 year rotation of sitka might be considerably more productive, and offer considerably improved amenity and wildlife habitat. As for Government well good luck with that.............. the current "Provisional Government" is nothing to do with me, i simply govern myself, and answer to God.

as far as i can tell we simply need considerably more area of ground under trees on this lovely green island of ours, and a couple of hundred years to get the hang of this forestry lark.

incidentally i manage our 34 Ha of Forest here in Tang, planted 1996 onwards, although we do have a number of much older preexisting patches of woodland with some lovely mature specimens, and i am constantly amazed at the productivity. I think that diversity of outputs from small forests is going to be key to success in the future, as is diversity of plants within those forests. Our more diverse sections are doing considerably better than the sections with monoculture of Ash, or Norway spruce.


best wishes
tim

$kilkenny

in the last 2 years plantations of Sitka have been blown over as young as 15 years of age, due to soils that cant support them and their overall height.

leaving sitka grow more than 35 years or 0.8 cubic meter per tree or over 25 meters tall is a complete waste of time. if it doesnt blow over in the wind, it will snap.

sitka is all about volume,most irish sawmills take a maximum of a 43cm log, anymore is again a waste of time.

once a stand of forestry goes over 0.8 cubic meter average tree size it actually begins to loose value because no one wants big logs.

blue5000

Reindeer wrote: »

In order to get one Sitka Spruce to make it to 100 years, you would need to plant a dozen, maybe two, others as nurses, wind breaks, erosion breaks, and the culled trees slash used as fetilizer and habitat for smaller animals that help fertilise and mature the trees standing, etc etc.

You must cull a certain amount of timber, or else allow mother nature to do so. Nature takes a much longer time to bring a tree to maturity than modern forestry practices, and it is anyone's guess whether that tree will be straight enough to allow for timber, and the forest it makes simply would not be safe by current European standards to allow the public access to.

The argument here is not how we practice forestry, really - it is about how we practice the 'park system'. Granted, when we finally 'inherited' this land a hundred years ago, there was precious little 'parkland' left. So we really couldn't implement it in such a way as, say, America has. But, in order to truly have parks and wildlife, we desperately need to sequester larger patches of land to be professionally managed as a park system. Such a system, by it's nature, can not possibly be semi private or enterprise driven. It must be 100% government driven, for the people and by them.

And good luck with that.

I'd actually like to try this, trouble is it will be the grand kids who will see what they look like. We have some leylandi planted by my grandfather in the 1930's and they are still growing even though they were never thinned.

Birdnuts

$kilkenny wrote: »

in the last 2 years plantations of Sitka have been blown over as young as 15 years of age, due to soils that cant support them and their overall height.

leaving sitka grow more than 35 years or 0.8 cubic meter per tree or over 25 meters tall is a complete waste of time. if it doesnt blow over in the wind, it will snap.

sitka is all about volume,most irish sawmills take a maximum of a 43cm log, anymore is again a waste of time.

once a stand of forestry goes over 0.8 cubic meter average tree size it actually begins to loose value because no one wants big logs.

Good post - never understood why Sitka rotations in this country were so long