Extend my question to include Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden and FInland then...if that pleases you.
I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland...
Well...its closer and the local population, who are the ones that would have been doing the harvesting, were more 'under the thumb' of their British overlords than any Baltic forestry worker....plus the distance that the timber needed to traverse was much shorter...indeed some of the ships were probably built in Ireland itself...
You really do have a problem. You answer questions not asked and make repsonses to what you think you read in other's posts that were never there in the first place.
In the instance of the 'question' of the deforestation of Ireland, you are answering a question that were NEVER asked. There has been NO such question except presumably in your own mind! You have decided to take a contrary view to what other people have chosen to post, but your contrariness does not mean that any question has ever been asked nor does it mean that your posts are relevant to the OPs interest.
Reread the OPs post and do TRY (as difficult as you clearly find it) to read for comprehension. Do note especially the subject header which includes more than Ireland.
The OP observed that TV documentaries and travelogues revealed lush 'green' but a scarcity of trees in both Ireland AND Britain.
The OP wanted to know WHY there were no trees and since you seem to have missed the point, the mention of TV documentaries and travelogues places the OPs interest in our current time. It is about the here and the now, not something that took place at the time of the Spanish Armada. The OPs interest also extends beyond just Ireland.
Which question, in particular, and explicitly stated, is that?
Is there some law that specifies that in usenet I must repeatedly refer to the original poster's point?
For the fun of it, here is the OPs posting:
"TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock?
My answer is that Ireland was once heavily forested but has been deforested and that the English ruling class, historically, were the proximate cause of that deforestation.
Forget the attempts to patronise...and here it is...again...the OP's post:
"TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock?"
I suppose trees could now be replanted...there are forests in Ireland nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum planted for JFK's visit for example.
Yeah, so?
So?
Right. I suppose trees could now be replanted...there are forests in Ireland nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum planted for JFK's visit for example.
The reasons why the trees aren't being replanted now are questions for the Irish government and private land owners.
Yes, but I note that I'm not the only one with that opinion.
viz: "I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland..."
You wrote that. No question about the deforestation of Ireland has been asked in this thread. You may choose to dribble on about it but it was not asked.
Only the sort of 'law' any competent undergraduates should know. It works like this: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock? Discuss"
Read the statement, understand what the statement is about, do research on the topic, decide which information is pertinent, write a response and provide evidence to support your stance.
You would rate a fail because you didn't understand the statement and went on to discuss something unrelated.
And that answer is irrelevant and simply harps back to your failure to comprehend that the OP is interested in the current time. The interest is NOT about deforestation. Trees can be grown in 80 years or less. How long has it been since the Armada sailed?
If your lecturers are right about your reading abilities, you wouldn't need me to explain. I don't spoon feed (your lecturers might).
Try reading the subject header and try remembering how often you mentioned any lack of trees in Britain.
Of course they could.
there are forests in
See, you can understand the statement when pushed to do so.
Thank you. So far I've had an expemplary day and it will shortly get even better.
The onus of proof is on the claimant, i.e. you, now, if you please demonstrate your source of knowledge regarding the Irish population prior to 1821.
You've neglected to include your reference regarding the population of Ireland prior to 1821.
Phew.
No, really you should have because not doing so is ignorant.
Oh my God...explain then, why it was that the blight hit Ireland hardest when the blight was also in other countries in
Fair comment.
You already make the point above...its not arable land.
You deny the significance of the Penal Laws ergo my point stands.
Fortunately the Professor of Logic at my University disagrees with you on this point.
Ah come on now...you're claiming, implicitly to have strong logical skills, you should already appreciate the Onus of proof lies upon the claimant, i.e. you.
If you need to read more on this, please see here:
formatting link
"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven"
You deny the importance of the penal laws to the historical period we are discussing...
Up to you but if you want to be taken seriously then you ought to live up to your epistemological responsibilities.
I didn't say "nothing" I said, "not much"...there's a difference but this supports my claims regarding your prejudice(s)....I just checked again and I note that you've even quoted me saying "not much" as opposed to your made up "know nothing" bullshit.
True but I'm asking for the relevance.
Ad hominem...deal with the point please.
in the 1840's
Ah yes...which ones please?
You say that like its a bad thing.
In your opinion. As it happens I have a Post Graduate Diploma as well as a B.Sc.
Ad hominem.
I'm 40, my house is almost freehold, I've been married for 6 years...
There were reports and inquiries on a regular basis, particularly once young Pitt became prime minister and a new fleet was built. A lot of the paperwork has survived and has been collated by people like Aspinal.
Ah well...you're just going to have to cope then aren't you?
This is usenet, not an undergrad essay topic...
Here tis, I've begun to answer the OPs question...here, for your reading pleasure I'll go on further to suggest that the concrete industry in Ireland has a fair amount to answer for...one thing that you may, or may not appreciate about Ireland is the way politics, in the 26 counties works...its not as straight forward as one might think...there are 'behind the scenes' exchanges of funds...as you may note recently with the resignation of Bertie Ahern:
formatting link
"The ignominious manner of Bertie Ahern's surprise departure from office, tarnished by allegations of financial impropriety..."
I get your point but I'm not replying to the bit about British countrysides...I don't have to...this is usenet.
I get your point but I'm not replying to the bit about British countrysides...I don't have to...this is usenet.
The real reasons why they aren't are likely to be much more complicated than someone who's never lived in Ireland might think. A significant factor has to be population density...the places where the population isn't so dense e.g. the Burren aren't particularly hospitable to trees.
Have you considered the possibility that I've been having you on all along?
I did not see him do it either; I am just assuming he must have; it would be exactly the kind of oppressive thing he would have done. Before the troubles, only 13.4% of NI trees were native.
Not sure about that. Goats and sheep can devastate a landscape because no new shoots get the chance to grow and young trees are quickly nibbled to death.
I suspect they favoured cattle - but a lot of the mountains here will support nothing but sheep or goats.
I suspect that only the rich and powerful - those that could afford bards, for instance - could also afford cattle. Mind you, cattle in those days were tough and small beasts. It's only since the mid 18th century that the meat of cattle fetched more money than the skins.
And here was I thinking you were actually serious about having an interest in Ireland and Irish history and just had problems presenting information in a sensible and ordered fashion. I was wrong on the former but was right on the latter, but then that is a typical tactic of a troll.
Sometimes I enjoy playing with trolls but I've decided that life is too short to bother with you.
That may be so but then again the more pastoral regions of Britain were just as treeeless as anywhere else. My own area in the Southern Uplands of Scotland for example! It may be as I said a matter of degree and you may indeed be right in that 11thC or 16thC Ireland may have had a larger fraction of its original forest intact, but what I was saying was that surely this was only a fraction of what had been? Iron Age and first millenium Ireland couldn't have been so much different from Britain - could it? I know it is only one poster sayig it but the idea that a huge primeval forest covered Ireland until Elizabeth of England cut it down to build a few ships to ward off the Armada sounds a bit off.
Sure. But I have other trees and use a mixture of linseed oil with a cheap tin of rooting compound mixed in. I do the same even for osier willow. I'd rather make sure that no disease gets a foot hold and it is my nature to be gentle and kind with plants.
I do have a plum tree where the leaves get full of holes in an area where lots of sloe grow. I'd rather destroy a plant which needs insecticide to live.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.