Our nations self destruction

Johnboner

So we have no forests left as 95% of them were cut down to make barrels for guiness as a result we have destroyed animals habitat and have no beautiful forests anymore, grand job... No excuses as even highly populated countries in terms of density such as Germany have a huge amount of forests. Good job for destroying our nature, you just see fields of nothing now everywhere with barely any fauna left.

Junkyard Tom

I've got wood.

worded

I thought the game said

just see fields of nothing now everywhere with BARLEY any fauna left.

NIMAN

They are planting forests again where I live.

Forests are over-rated anyway.

Only thing I know, is that I could kill a pint of Guinness now.

JupiterKid

It's true that Ireland is one of the least forested countries in Europe. But it's gone from 1% forest cover in 1910 to over 14% today. Problem is that most of these forests are evergreen with very little diversity in terms of habitat.

We need more deciduous broadleaf forest in Ireland. But we're getting there.

Graces7

JupiterKid wrote: »

It's true that Ireland is one of the least forested countries in Europe. But it's gone from 1% forest cover in 1910 to over 14% today. Problem is that most of these forests are evergreen with very little diversity in terms of habitat.

We need more deciduous broadleaf forest in Ireland. But we're getting there.

So each let us go plant a few trees...Will do here.. better light a candle that rail at the darkness..

mansize

I don't like flora

its like eating bad margarine

Planted forests are horrific. Just a mesh of branches that are impossible to walk through, support little wildlife so are almost silent, and a carpet of needles that take ages to break down, silting up streams. They are like a dead zone. On the other hand, one deciduous tree can be a thing of beauty, you don't even need a forest, a sycamore in a field.

Graces7

Deleted User wrote: »

Planted forests are horrific. Just a mesh of branches that are impossible to walk through, support little wildlife so are almost silent, and a carpet of needles that take ages to break down, silting up streams. They are like a dead zone. On the other hand, one deciduous tree can be a thing of beauty, you don't even need a forest, a sycamore in a field.

When I had pet lambs I would take them to the nearby forestry plantation and they would go wild in there. racing about and loving it. And the cones burn well..any tree is better than no tree

Noddyholder

I cant see my forest because of the trees.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

No point planting trees if all we plant is conifers. They have blighted this country.

However, the biodiversity of a country isn't measured by trees. We have a rich mix of grassland, bogs etc in this country.


And of course the OP know we did not destroy our woodland for Guinness barrels. Such rubbish!

fepper

Conifers really have the only commercial value for some kind of return for landowner when clearfelling so in most cases hardwood/deciduous trees are literally for the birds only,landowners / farmers cant be expected to grow trees for no return at the moment!!

Mr. CooL ICE

I'm always told that I'm a few trees short of a forest. I never knew what it meant.

Melodeon

Exactly!
Softwoods/conifers are the only option for landowners that will give a commercial financial return within a reasonable timeframe.
Vast native deciduous forests would indeed be lovely, but no one (either the state or private landowners) is going to invest the time or finances into acquiring the required land and waiting several centuries for it to develop and mature.

volchitsa

Johnboner wrote: »

So we have no forests left as 95% of them were cut down to make barrels for guiness as a result we have destroyed animals habitat and have no beautiful forests anymore, grand job... No excuses as even highly populated countries in terms of density such as Germany have a huge amount of forests. Good job for destroying our nature, you just see fields of nothing now everywhere with barely any fauna left.

True that Ireland has a problem with a lack of forested areas (and rows of commercial conifers all planted in deadly straight lines don't really count, they don't provide an environment for animals or for other plants)

But where does the idea that they were all cut down for Guinness barrels come from? That's a myth, surely?

JustAThought

Melodeon wrote: »

Exactly!
Softwoods/conifers are the only option for landowners that will give a commercial financial return within a reasonable timeframe.
Vast native deciduous forests would indeed be lovely, but no one (either the state or private landowners) is going to invest the time or finances into acquiring the required land and waiting several centuries for it to develop and mature.

Was only reading the other day about an 'incentive' to Irish landowners to plant natuve Irish trees in their land - the annual payment per acre (!) seemed extraordinarily low but there were big incentives in tax liabilities & inheritance tax. Someone is thinking ahead in revenue - thank God.

There is a great organisation that plants native woodlands - I think it might be the native woodlands trust - after they secure permission to plant or get a 'site' from the Government they grow & plant indigenous Irish native tree species to grow into forests/woods & act as a habitat for wildlife - amazing people.

OP you could volunteer & help - they are always looking for people & I hear the digs are great.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

volchitsa wrote: »

But where does the idea that they were all cut down for Guinness barrels come from? That's a myth, surely?

It's not even a myth. The OP just made it up.

SEPT 23 1989

Nice try hippy

Come back to us when you have some real data

Barrels ffs

biko

Low forest rate does not equal nation's destruction.
But please, hysteria on...

Melodeon

Interestingly, the first oak barrels made from Irish oak in over a century have recently been produced for Irish Whiskey:
http://irishwhiskey.com/dair-ghaelach-irish-whiskey-aged-in-irish-oak/

130 year old trees, and the timber had to be exported to Spain to be made into casks as the craft of coopering has long since died out here in ireland.

seamus

volchitsa wrote: »

But where does the idea that they were all cut down for Guinness barrels come from? That's a myth, surely?

It's an anti-Irish slur spread by the governments of the 1800s to hide the fact that deforestation was the result of decades of UK governments sucking the Island dry of natural resources like they did in Africa and India.

No, it was those drunken Irish and their insatiable appeitite for stout.

Oops69

volchitsa wrote: »

True that Ireland has a problem with a lack of forested areas (and rows of commercial conifers all planted in deadly straight lines don't really count, they don't provide an environment for animals or for other plants)

But where does the idea that they were all cut down for Guinness barrels come from? That's a myth, surely?

its either that myth or the one about all the oak being cut down for the fleet of the British admiralty , in truth it was all deforested to grow crops, Mostly , then for grazing and later on to grow potatoes , Iceland should be covered in conifers as well and its a wasteland , and the interior of Australia is the same for the same reasons and not just because 'its really hot '

tabby aspreme

William Grant distillery in Tullamore are advertising for apprentice coopers at the moment.
The govt fund the planting of 10;000 acres if forestry annually , the rates of funding favour deciduous trees, plus you would have the replanting of clear felled forestry on top of that, the majority of which would be coniferous planting, the biggest threat to deciduous trees at the moment is ash dieback disease.

Oops69

one would think there'd be a scramble to plant trees at the moment , what with the market up north From the DUP wood- buring Stoves for the next twenty years and London paying for it.

alchemist33

fepper wrote: »

Conifers really have the only commercial value for some kind of return for landowner when clearfelling so in most cases hardwood/deciduous trees are literally for the birds only,landowners / farmers cant be expected to grow trees for no return at the moment!!

Hurleys, that's what we need. A hundred hurleys for every household in Ireland so Ash-growing will be financially viable. We could fund this with the money we're not spending on a monorail in Nenagh.

ToddyDoody

Johnboner wrote: »

So we have no forests left as 95% of them were cut down to make barrels for guiness as a result we have destroyed animals habitat and have no beautiful forests anymore, grand job... No excuses as even highly populated countries in terms of density such as Germany have a huge amount of forests. Good job for destroying our nature, you just see fields of nothing now everywhere with barely any fauna left.

What brought this on?

How's your Millennium tree doing?

archer22

Johnboner wrote: »

So we have no forests left as 95% of them were cut down to make barrels for guiness as a result we have destroyed animals habitat and have no beautiful forests anymore, grand job... No excuses as even highly populated countries in terms of density such as Germany have a huge amount of forests. Good job for destroying our nature, you just see fields of nothing now everywhere with barely any fauna left.

It would be a great help if the few remaining hedgerows were left develop naturally.
But sadly most of them are so cut and flail beaten that if a sparrow sought shelter in them on a winter's night he would be frozen to death by morning.

Your Face

The OP wants to reintroduce previously native fauna like wolves and bears.

What could possibly go wrong?

Dr Crayfish

Have we no natural forests at all left? Would the likes of the Dublin mountains etc have been covered in trees or just the same as they are now? When you fly over Ireland you can see it's just a patchwork of farms. I am one to go on about saving natural habitats around the world but when we look at our own back yard I've not much of a leg to stand on. I would imagine most of our wilderness was destroyed to create farm land.
Incidentally I did see a badger on Tuesday night for the first time ever, just beside St Anne's park. Really amazing looking thing, has a really cool walk and looks stocky and tough. I'd say he'd take on two foxes at once no problem.

Dr Crayfish

Your Face wrote: »

The OP wants to reintroduce previously native fauna like wolves and bears.

What could possibly go wrong?

Unfortunately Ireland is too small to accommodate wolves but "rewilding" can work wonders for an environment.

http://blog.ted.com/video-how-wolves-can-alter-the-course-of-rivers/

Above, everyone's favourite Green crusader George Monbiot discusses how putting wolves in an environment ultimately changed the course of rivers and led to cco-equilibrium.

archer22

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Have we no natural forests at all left? Would the likes of the Dublin mountains etc have been covered in trees or just the same as they are now? When you fly over Ireland you can see it's just a patchwork of farms. I am one to go on about saving natural habitats around the world but when we look at our own back yard I've not much of a leg to stand on. I would imagine most of our wilderness was destroyed to create farm land.
Incidentally I did see a badger on Tuesday night for the first time ever, just beside St Anne's park. Really amazing looking thing, has a really cool walk and looks stocky and tough. I'd say he'd take on two foxes at once no problem.

Ironically some of the native woodlands were destroyed to to make way for commercial forest.That happened in the huge glen that's behind my home here.

Totally agree with you about Badgers, an absolutely beautiful and fascinating animal.
Also the European Badger is a very docile and peaceful creature..(when left alone).Nothing at all like his African cousin the Honey Badger

buried

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Have we no natural forests at all left?

St.Johns Wood in Roscommon is there. 7 Km of natural Irish deciduous woodland, and fine walking trails going through it. Take the N61 Roscommon road from Athlone past Kiltoom and you'll see the direction signs for it. Fantastic place to go in Spring.

Buford T. Justice XIX

archer22 wrote: »

It would be a great help if the few remaining hedgerows were left develop naturally.
But sadly most of them are so cut and flail beaten that if a sparrow sought shelter in them on a winter's night he would be frozen to death by morning.

The primary purpose of hedgerows is to provide a stockproof barrier to cattle and sheep. To achieve that, they have to be trimmed regularly so the top, dominant shoots are cut off which allows the shoots further down to develop sideways to provide a dense, stockproof hedge.

wakka12

Hardly a nations destruction is it...we probably need more forests but theres probably bigger problems in the country at the moment

archer22

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

The primary purpose of hedgerows is to provide a stockproof barrier to cattle and sheep. To achieve that, they have to be trimmed regularly so the top, dominant shoots are cut off which allows the shoots further down to develop sideways to provide a dense, stockproof hedge.

Well that was the original purpose, but most of the battered hedges I see now have electric fencing running along the inside.
It looks like most of the cutting and flailing is done out of a misplaced sense of neatness.
I have seen strong hedges that were 100% stock proof turned into skeletons of their former selves from overzealous use of the hedge cutters around here.

RobertKK

Female badgers with young cubs can attack if one gets too close.
I was bringing in the cows one morning, it was at dawn and not very bright, I could see this mound in the field, which was on a hill above me, so I went to see what it was, I got the shock of my life, I was two feet away and ere I recognised it was a badger. I stayed still as the badger stared at me for a couple of seconds before running off. It was scary.
The badger was rooting in an old cow dung for dung beetles to eat.
The department of agriculture has been culling them in my area over the past number of years, after badgers were turning up dead in fields and on the road from TB which was affecting cattle.
Since they started culling TB has not been a problem.

As for forestry, there is not an incentive to plant deciduous trees, yes the amount per acre paid is higher, you get paid for 15 years, but the length to maturity is way longer.
I am thinking of planting some forestry and it will be coniferous, and most of the land being planted is not good enough for deciduous trees.
The good land stays in agriculture for most people.

Annasopra

Erik Clean Skydiver wrote: »

It's not even a myth. The OP just made it up.

fake news?

Buford T. Justice XIX

archer22 wrote: »

Well that was the original purpose, but most of the battered hedges I see now have electric fencing running along the inside.
It looks like most of the cutting and flailing is done out of a misplaced sense of neatness.
I have seen strong hedges that were 100% stock proof turned into skeletons of their former selves from overzealous use of the hedge cutters around here.

Yeah, farmers like their patch to look well and sometimes to a misplaced degree.

One question I never hear asked is why the urban environment which is so, so similar to the rural has so little native plantings. It seems peculiar for urban dwellers to bemoan the perceived failures of rural management of the native environment when practically none of the urban environment, which is as well able to support our native flora and fauna, has native species growing.

Widdershins

Graces7 wrote: »

So each let us go plant a few trees...Will do here.. better light a candle that rail at the darkness..

OP I totally agree that its a disgrace. I'm doing what Graces7 said. I have friends who do it too. Even if they don't have their own place to plant, they will plant on rough urban ground, or on wild ground in the country, and hope for the best. We also do this with wildflowers. Guerilla planting.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Widdershins wrote: »

OP I totally agree that its a disgrace. I'm doing what Graces7 said. I have friends who do it too. Even if they don't have their own place to plant, they will plant on rough urban ground, or on wild ground in the country, and hope for the best. We also do this with wildflowers. Guerilla planting.

I would like to see more people actually do so, as many say they will but never do.
I sowed seed years back of mostly oak, hazel, chestnut, birch, pine and sycamore. I then planted up just over .75 of an acre of my garden. There is now a fine 'little' wood with wood anemones, bluebell, orchids etc and a wide variety of birds and mammals visiting. Fallen branches are log pile homes for fungi and bugs.
It takes effort though and needs group planting. Unfortunately a single tree here and there does little for our ecosystems.

Tristrams Shandied

"They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em "

osarusan

My parents planted over 3000 trees on their land about 25 years ago (as part of some scheme which was waaaay oversubscribed and the promised income never materialised).

All evergreen though.

gctest50

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Unfortunately Ireland is too small to accommodate wolves but "rewilding" can work wonders for an environment.

http://blog.ted.com/video-how-wolves-can-alter-the-course-of-rivers/

Above, everyone's favourite Green crusader George Monbiot discusses how putting wolves in an environment ultimately changed the course of rivers and led to cco-equilibrium.

More like deer are destructive c***

Need to go on a massive deer culling expedition countrywide

archer22

RobertKK wrote: »

Female badgers with young cubs can attack if one gets too close.
I was bringing in the cows one morning, it was at dawn and not very bright, I could see this mound in the field, which was on a hill above me, so I went to see what it was, I got the shock of my life, I was two feet away and ere I recognised it was a badger. I stayed still as the badger stared at me for a couple of seconds before running off. It was scary.
The badger was rooting in an old cow dung for dung beetles to eat.
The department of agriculture has been culling them in my area over the past number of years, after badgers were turning up dead in fields and on the road from TB which was affecting cattle.
Since they started culling TB has not been a problem.

As for forestry, there is not an incentive to plant deciduous trees, yes the amount per acre paid is higher, you get paid for 15 years, but the length to maturity is way longer.
I am thinking of planting some forestry and it will be coniferous, and most of the land being planted is not good enough for deciduous trees.
The good land stays in agriculture for most people.

So the Badger stared at you when you surprised her and she then ran off...and you considered that an attack .

As for the TB I assume DOA culled cattle as well which might have helped stem the outbreak...looks to me like the main problem has always been Cattle to Badger infection.Given that Badgers check under old cow pats for insects.
I remember back in the 70s/ 80s when there was massive Fox snaring for their pelts....Badgers at that time were virtually wiped in many areas as they were being accidentally caught and killed in the Fox snares.
But I can't remember anybody at that time commenting on a fall off in TB in their herds.
Anyhow I believe there is a large Badger vaccination programme under way now in many areas.Results to be available in a year or so.

archer22

gctest50 wrote: »

More like deer are destructive c***

Need to go on a massive deer culling expedition countrywide

Are you sure its not Horses...there seems to be quite a large bit of dung near that first tree.And the height of some of the skinning seems too high for Deer.

gctest50

archer22 wrote: »

Are you sure its not Horses...there seems to be quite a large bit of dung near that first tree.And the height of some of the skinning seems too high for Deer.

you'd get diagonal teeth marks if it was ponies

there is a place for them too, right next to the potatoes and veg

RobertKK

archer22 wrote: »

So the Badger stared at you when you surprised her and she then ran off...and you considered that an attack .
As for the TB I assume DOA culled cattle as well which might have helped stem the outbreak...looks to me like the main problem has always been Cattle to Badger infection.Given that Badgers check under old cow pats for insects.
I remember back in the 70s/ 80s when there was massive Fox snaring for their pelts....Badgers at that time were virtually wiped in many areas as they were being accidentally caught and killed in the Fox snares.
But I can't remember anybody at that time commenting on a fall off in TB in their herds.
Anyhow I believe there is a large Badger vaccination programme under way now in many areas.Results to be available in a year or so.

Nowhere did I call that an attack. I said a female badger with cubs can attack. I was not saying I was attacked.

We had badgers dying in fields and on the road around here, I range the DOA if they anted to test the dead badgers and they said, 'is it fresh?' I said there is a smell and I was told to 'bury it'.
I didn't want a diseased badger with possible TB buried so I had a big fire and reduced it to ash, which a DOA official said to me was probably the best thing.
I have nothing against badgers, but it was the badgers who were keeping a TB problem going that my cattle had which cost me a lot, as animals would be culled, and it was going on for 2 years where my herd was restricted, then other herds around were being infected, and Johnstown castle put in a plan to cull badgers, I get a letter every year telling me how many badgers were removed.
There has been no problem since. I think a cull is necessary where a badger population is very sick with TB, with dead badgers turning up over a timeframe that suggests it is endemic in their sett, as vaccination is too late in these cases.

Yourself isit

Thomas kinsella blames the Brits.

http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/eire/cillchai.htm

Widdershins

RobertKK wrote: »

Nowhere did I call that an attack. I said a female badger with cubs can attack. I was not saying I was attacked.

We had badgers dying in fields and on the road around here, I range the DOA if they anted to test the dead badgers and they said, 'is it fresh?' I said there is a smell and I was told to 'bury it'.
I didn't want a diseased badger with possible TB buried so I had a big fire and reduced it to ash, which a DOA official said to me was probably the best thing.
I have nothing against badgers, but it was the badgers who were keeping a TB problem going that my cattle had which cost me a lot, as animals would be culled, and it was going on for 2 years where my herd was restricted, then other herds around were being infected, and Johnstown castle put in a plan to cull badgers, I get a letter every year telling me how many badgers were removed.
There has been no problem since. I think a cull is necessary where a badger population is very sick with TB, with dead badgers turning up over a timeframe that suggests it is endemic in their sett, as vaccination is too late in these cases.

Aren't the cattle vaccinated and therefore safe from contracting Tb?

RobertKK

Widdershins wrote: »

Aren't the cattle vaccinated and therefore safe from contracting Tb?

No.

Cattle have to be tested at least once a year, and it usually once a year once you have no cases of TB or doubtful results from the TB test.
If you have TB the animal(s) is/are culled, and the herd is restricted, meaning one can't sell cattle to other farmers, in these cases the herd is restricted 60 days later and if clear they have to await another TB test 60 days later before the herd is declared clear.
If an animal has an inconclusive test, the animal is to be isolated and re-tested 60 days later and if clear, then all is fine, if inconclusive again or it fails the test, the animals is culled and you need two clear tests before the herd is declared clear of TB.

This has been going on since the 1950s.

foxy farmer

RobertKK wrote: »

No.

Cattle have to be tested at least once a year, and it usually once a year once you have no cases of TB or doubtful results from the TB test.
If you have TB the animal(s) is/are culled, and the herd is restricted, meaning one can't sell cattle to other farmers, in these cases the herd is restricted 60 days later and if clear they have to await another TB test 60 days later before the herd is declared clear.
If an animal has an inconclusive test, the animal is to be isolated and re-tested 60 days later and if clear, then all is fine, if inconclusive again or it fails the test, the animals is culled and you need two clear tests before the herd is declared clear of TB.

This has been going on since the 1950s.

And still using the same test where the animal has to be slaughtered to prove beyond doubt that they have TB.
Badgers deer wild boar birds dogs green men from Mars. Who knows how its spread. They will never get to the end of and the vets will make sure they won't. 30- 35 mill budget for it each year. The bureaucracy following it is farcical. There would be thousands unemployed if they got rid of TB. There's forests cut down to produce the amount of paper that the Dept of Ag issue in relation to TB. More waste.