Trees: Scotland and B.C.
came...@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
visited both places several times, I have often been struck by the
similar geography of coastal B.C. (except for the Fraser delta) and the
Scottish Highlands. Both have wet temperate climates and hilly or
mountainous terrains.
However, except where the loggers have clearcut or there is exposed
bedrock, coastal B.C. is covered by trees, whereas Scottish mountains
tend to be covered by heather and bracken, although I have noted increasing
numbers of evergreen plantations in recent times.
Could someone tell me whether the Scottish Highlands were once covered in
trees, similarly to B.C., and whether what we see there now is a result
of man's (and sheeps') impact on that environment?
Don Cameron
(speaking personally)
Fearghas McKay
From: camerond
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 19:15:06 GMT
In article <20AUG93....@cc4.crl.aecl.ca> , came...@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
writes:
>
>Could someone tell me whether the Scottish Highlands were once covered in
>trees, similarly to B.C., and whether what we see there now is a result
>of man's (and sheeps') impact on that environment?
>
>Don Cameron
>(speaking personally)
Yes they were, but the clear cutting was not on the same scale as is
currnetly happenning in other parts of the world.
The result is more man than sheep, but managed forests were around from
the 4-6 century in the Highlands.
Alastair McIntosh
Yeah, much of Scotland was once covered with trees. At the moment
I have a PhD student in BC and he's just written back describing what
the anti-logging activists there are doing as tryiing to stop Vancouver
Island becoming like Scotland. The same goes for Ireland, which I visited
a month ago and reveals massive quantities of bog pine, oak and yew where
the peat has been removed.
Conventional wisdom has it that the forests receded about 4 - 5 thousand
years ago because of climate change. However, there is growing evidence
that while it certainly got wetter, the forests were lost due to
anthropogenic reasons including grazing, clearance for agriculture and
the burning of forests to clear out the original tree-loving inhabitants
(who, in folklore, became the faeries - the people of peace).
In both Scotland and Ireland there are groups of us encouraging reforestation
by native species. This is for both economic and spiritual reasons. In
Scotland the movement is inspired through a network called Reforesting
Scotland, who have a journal by the same name available from Emma
and Bernard Planterose, Duartbeg, Scourie, Sutherland, Scotland - cost
about $20 for two issues. There are several hundred people in Scotland
involved in the network, undertaking such work as running organic
native nurseries, to contract planting, to phantom tree planting (ie.
planting secretly on other peoples land to restore the ecology by
recreating sacred groves)..
Alastair McIntosh
Centre for Human Ecology
University of Edinburgh
+44 31 650 3469
came...@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
>
>
>Yeah, much of Scotland was once covered with trees. At the moment
>I have a PhD student in BC and he's just written back describing what
>the anti-logging activists there are doing as tryiing to stop Vancouver
>Island becoming like Scotland.
>
>Conventional wisdom has it that the forests receded about 4 - 5 thousand
>years ago because of climate change. However, there is growing evidence
>that while it certainly got wetter, the forests were lost due to
>anthropogenic reasons including grazing, clearance for agriculture and
>the burning of forests to clear out the original tree-loving inhabitants
>(who, in folklore, became the faeries - the people of peace).
>
>In both Scotland and Ireland there are groups of us encouraging reforestation
>by native species. This is for both economic and spiritual reasons. In
>Scotland the movement is inspired through a network called Reforesting
>
>involved in the network, undertaking such work as running organic
>native nurseries, to contract planting, to phantom tree planting (ie.
>planting secretly on other peoples land to restore the ecology by
>recreating sacred groves)..
>
>
>Alastair McIntosh
>Centre for Human Ecology
>University of Edinburgh
>+44 31 650 3469
>
>
the differences in vegetation between B.C. and Scotland. I wonder if
we might pursue the issue a little further. From my perspective as a
casual appreciator of the aesthetics of the landscape, the coniferous
forests of B.C. and the Scottish Highlands with only low vegetation
both have an attractive visual impact. Hikers, I suspect might prefer
the open vistas of Scotland, for it is a feature of much of Canadian
scenery that one often cannot see the forest (or anything else) for the
trees.
Perhaps you would elaborate more on the economic and spiritual reasons why
you feel reforestation of the Highlands would be a good thing. I seem to
recall some opposition to tree farming in the highlands. Is there
oppposition the the more generalized concept of natural reforestation,
perhaps from those who enjoy or benefit from the landscape the way it is
now?
It would be ironic if on this side of the Atlantic we had people fighting
to stop parts of Vancouver Island becoming more like Scotland, while
over there popular sentiment would be against trying to make Scotland
again more like Vancouver Island.
Rhetorically, I wonder if it would be all bad if parts of B.C. did
become more like Scotland, while still retaining an abundance of trees
elsewhere. One of the features of the Canadian landscape is that
it comes in very large chunks, with little obvious local variety.
Would this be good or bad from the viewpoint of biological diversity?
Reverting to Scotland, I wonder, if the forests had not been cleared,
whether the haggis would be as abundant as they are today, particularly
the variant with the slightly shorter legs on the lefthand-side, that
traverses the mountainsides only in an anti-clockwise direction.
Don Cameron
(speaking personally)
Richard Winder
Encycopaedia Britannica (On Scotland): "Lower ground, up to about 1,500 ft.,
was once covered by natural forests which have been cleared in the course of
centuries and replaced by introduced trees, plants, and crops..."
Of course, if our introduced Scotch Broom has its way, we may be looking
like Scotland before long... :-) -RSW
>Don Cameron
>(speaking personally)
RICHARD WINDER Title: Visiting Fellow
Forestry Canada Phone: (604) 363-0600
Victoria, B.C. Internet: RWI...@A1.PFC.Forestry.CA
Matthew Killick
> I seem to
>recall some opposition to tree farming in the highlands. Is there
>oppposition the the more generalized concept of natural reforestation,
>perhaps from those who enjoy or benefit from the landscape the way it is
>now?
>
>Don Cameron
>(speaking personally)
>
I don't know if there is opposition is to the general concept of re-aforestation,
but there certainly is opposition to the practice. This is partly due to the
replacement of balanced (if significantly altered) ecosystems with monoculture.
No-one appears to be planitng the native Scots pine either. Much of the
planting has been carried out by the Forestry Commission or by absentee
landlords for tax avoidance, so there is also plenty of suspicion of the motives
of those involved (the Forestry Commission is notoriously insensitive).
Mat Killick
Perth
Western Australia
(economic refugee from the North).
Alastair McIntosh
The trouble with clearing the trees to create bare hills and "wet desert"
as Fraser Darling called the peat bogs, is that there is evidence that you
reduce carrying capacity as a result of nutrient/soil loss. What those
seeking reaforestation of Scotland are seeking is the restoration of a
rich ecosystem, with a range of native species and not the monoculture
plantations beloved of tax exiles. Current Forest Authority policy is
very supportive of ecological reconstitution, with various grants available
for replanting, and a lot of people are taking these up.
In the Green Party Manifesto for the Highlands (available from the
Reforesting Scotland address I gave earlier) a vision is painted of
a forest based economy for Scotland. Many of us believe that this
would enrich our nation in terms of economy, soil regeneration,
biodiversity and those aspects of the human spirit which were lost
exactly 250 years ago with the shooting of the last wild wolf (and
other species, the totemic significance of which is something we
are only now starting to recognise).
Both Chis Smout of St Andrews University and Sandy Mather of Aberdeen
Univeristy have documented evidence for declining carrying capacity
over the past two hundred years. I don't have the references to hand
as I'm not in my office just now, but e-mail me if you want them.
Alastair McIntosh.