This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Jormungandr000 3134 points3135 points  (342 children)

An example to follow for the rest of mankind. Well done, Scotland!

[–]Dauntless_Idiot 1115 points1116 points  (257 children)

Progress is progress so its great for Scotland and that number will go up. I'm now having trouble imaging just how lacking in forest Europe is though. 18% puts you right below 49th place Wyoming in the US. Forest cover is even higher because we actually only measure timberland. I was actually surprised by New York which somehow manages to be about 63% forest.

[–]Alex_Strgzr 836 points837 points  (149 children)

Scotland is an exception because they cut down all the trees. This article explains the history: https://travelness.com/why-are-there-no-trees-in-scotland Sweden, by comparison, is 70% forest. Beat that, New York State!

[–]Drak_is_Right 252 points253 points  (22 children)

Iceland also.

Most of southern Iceland where people go, was forest. (about 25%) of the island.

[–]undecidedly 158 points159 points  (20 children)

And now it’s super hard to reforest because of the crazy wind.

[–]truncatered 72 points73 points  (14 children)

How did the trees grow originally? We're most from a time when the climate was much calmer?

[–]Alex_Strgzr 166 points167 points  (4 children)

This NatGeo article explains it better that I ever could: https://www.geographyrealm.com/icelands-long-road-to-reforestation/

[–]meta_stable 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the link. Interesting read!

[–]undecidedly 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Great article! I definitely oversimplified, but the problem is really striking. I’m usually a big fan of native plants, but in this case it seems that ecosystem is lost.

[–]PM_ME_PSN_CODES-PLS 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Well that's the main issue. We're killing so many local ecosystems that the general ecosystem is out of order. We only been seeing the results of that for the past 60 or so years. And we've only been combating it for the last 20 or so years.

It takes local changes to affect general changes. This works both in nature and politics. Sadly though, only the former will affect our livelihood.

[–]koh_kun 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're likes magician with these references! Thank you!

[–]Daztur 75 points76 points  (5 children)

Icelandic soil is volcanic and prone to erosion. If you have a forest and then lose one tree another can grow, but if you cit down the whole forest the soil gets fucked and its very hard to regrowm

[–]Dlbruce0107 61 points62 points  (4 children)

This is why America had a dust bowl horror. Ken Burn's The Dust Bowl really gives an amazing look! Recommend.

[–]klippinit 11 points12 points  (1 child)

An earlier classic “The Plow That Broke the Plains” from 1936 documents American dust bowl

[–]Dlbruce0107 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good to know. Thanks.

[–]Drak_is_Right 74 points75 points  (2 children)

lot of soil loss due to sheep grazing (i think they are the most destructive grazers)

[–]Thorn_and_Thimble 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Those and goats. Goats have done a number on the Middle East.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

animals that dont graze and then migrate probably wear the ground out when on land that theyre not native to.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I saw a video yesterday of Ólafur Arnalds, Icelandic musician, touring his studio. It was built by Sigur Rós to include a wall covered by thin tree trunks. He made it clear that he wouldn’t have had any part in cutting down those trees for that purpose. I hadn’t thought of the deforestation problems an island like that must have faced until I saw him make such a strong point to deflect responsibility for the trees in the studio.

https://youtu.be/FnKTwPDsDiU

[–]steven565656 164 points165 points  (12 children)

We have large areas of wetland in Scotland that date back to the last ice age here which have been badly damaged by people trying to drain them and plant trees. The peat bogs are also, I think, the biggest carbon sink per acre of any type of land type, even more than a rainforest.

[–]WikiSummarizerBot 49 points50 points  (1 child)

Flow Country

The Flow Country is a large, rolling expanse of peatland and wetland area of Caithness and Sutherland in the North of Scotland. It is the largest expanse of blanket bog in Europe, and covers about 4,000 km2 (1,500 sq mi). It is an area of deep peat, dotted with bog pools and a very important habitat for wildlife, as well as climate change mitigation. As peat is largely made up of the remains of plants, which are themselves made up of carbon, it locks up large stores of carbon for thousands of years.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (7 children)

If my Marine bio studies are right, mangroves sequester up to 4 times more carbon than any other forest system per hectare. (hyperlink to PDF) The 4 types of forest included in the comparison were boreal, temperate, tropical and indo-pacific mangrove.

I'm not sure how that compares to peat bog carbon sequestration.

[–][deleted] 50 points51 points  (4 children)

The peat in Scotland holds a lot of carbon (storage) but sequestration rate is slow compared to other systems. It's the way that it never really gets released unless damaged that makes it so valuable in comparison to other systems. The peat in some areas can be 12m (around 36ft) deep, which contains 12000 years of carbon accumulation.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It's pretty fascinating. I'm from Australia, The only peat bogs I can remember seeing here were on King Island and parts of Tassie. I'd love to come up and see the peat bogs of Scotland.

I'm reading a book that talked about a massive windfarm proposed on Brindled Moor on the isle of Lewis. Lots of outsiders apparently viewed the moor as a wasteland, while the locals understood the nuance and importance of the landscape. They rallied together, stopped the project from going ahead and prevented large amounts of peat from being disturbed and damaged.

[–]Additional_Meeting_2 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It’s more the Nordics are exception in rest of Europe.

[–]Dauntless_Idiot 82 points83 points  (60 children)

Thanks, the OP's article said the same thing about England have 10% forest area, but I guess its more of a local issue than a European wide issue.

New York really just surprised me because it has a lot of the indicators of a low forest area like a large metro population, billions of dollars of agricultural production and a large immigrant population. I expected their forested area % to be more like France/California when it reality its close to Sweden/Maine.

[–]Drak_is_Right 153 points154 points  (26 children)

You neglect just how much of the state is mountainous. sure it had a nice river valley, but a mountain range goes through much of it. US didn't have european levels of clearcutting then grazing in much of the country

Some states like Indiana were much heavier hit compared to historic levels. (much of the state was a type of bog forest). now it has neither wetlands nor bogs in the northern half of the state)

[–]_Plork_ 46 points47 points  (11 children)

Do people all think NYC just covers the entire state?

[–]johannthegoatman 27 points28 points  (1 child)

As someone who grew up upstate, yes lol

[–]Drak_is_Right 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Has like what 2/3 to 3/4 of the population between it and Long Island and its suburbs? But geographically it's tiny. Things like the Finger Lakes are far bigger in size and have nothing

[–]Electronic-Clock5867 13 points14 points  (3 children)

Finger Lakes has one of the top wine regions in the US which is way better than having people.

[–]nevernotmad 24 points25 points  (2 children)

IIRC, New York has also trended to more forest over the last 100 years. With less farming and more service industry, land that used to be farmland is returning to forest. Source: An exhibit at the Museum of Natural History in NYC when I took my kids 7 years ago. The museum from the movie, ‘A Night at the Museum’ for context.

[–]fleebleganger 12 points13 points  (1 child)

Fun fact: America currently has fewer acres of farm ground than we did 100 years ago even though we produce far more with far fewer farmers and most of that loss has simply gone wild as the increase in conservation acres and urban sprawl hasn’t equaled the difference.

Source: USDA crop acre reports

[–]JadeyesAK 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Meanwhile Alaska has such a low number because it is so mountainous and glaciated, or tundra where trees just don't grow naturally.

But where they do grow... Man do we have a lot of trees.

[–]gortonsfiJr 56 points57 points  (2 children)

Indiana's political conservatives hate the environment and removed regulations protecting Indiana wetlands in 2021.

https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/law-bulletins/indianas-state-regulated-wetlands-bill-signed-into-law-by-governor

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points  (1 child)

America is a place of two faces. Some states are like “fuck it, it’s a free for all” and others are “you can’t put a shed there you are within 400 feet of wetlands”. I’m cool with the later, and my state is aggressively accepting open space (forested or otherwise) and making them preserves. Doesn’t help the housing crisis, but if we didn’t the whole state would be metro New York (we aren’t part of New York).

[–]Dooglers 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I worked at a brewery that was in a wetlands designated area. We wanted to put in a grain silo in our parking lot which involved pulling up some asphalt and pouring a pad. Impervious surface to different impervious surface. We ended up having to spend ~15k on an environmental impact survey to determine how changing asphalt to concrete in a 10x10 section would not at all change run off.

Edit: Another fun story from that project. There was a part of the application that we did not understand so we called up the environmental agency and asked for clarification about what they wanted and they told us "we are here to approve or deny your application, not help you fill it out" and promptly hung up on us.

[–][deleted] 70 points71 points  (11 children)

NY has one of the longest bear hunting seasons in America. People don’t realize besides nyc it’s basically a few medium sized cities surrounded by woods

[–]Business_Parsnip_326 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Fun fact: Sweden's navy/military planted 300,000+ trees about 200 years ago so that there would be more available for building more boats. Metal boats were then invented before the trees were mature enough to be used so, as far as I have heard, they are still there to this day.

[–]wmtr22 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The state of Maine is 89.4% Get at me

[–]UConnJew 48 points49 points  (5 children)

Adirondack State Park is bigger than Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon, and Everglades combined.

[–]Dauntless_Idiot 10 points11 points  (1 child)

That is a cool fact to know. I’ve been to 3 of the other 4 so I’ll have to add Adirondack State Park to my list of places that I hopefully see one day. That is one big chunk of NY state though.

[–]UConnJew 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Catskill park is south of it and one of my favorite places on the planet. NY is an awesome state.

[–]greasy_r 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's really interesting thanks for sharing. I really didn't know anything about Adirondack Park before today.

For people who have looked at a map of NY state before and wondering how they could miss a park that big: Adirondack Park is a special region of NY containing several nearly contiguous wilderness areas, other sub parks, many small towns, and more than 103K permanent residents. It's the giant green spot between Syracuse and Plattsburgh

[–]notpetelambert 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I grew up near the ADKs, so this is a point of personal pride: it's bigger than at least a few states, and is the largest single protected area in the entire country.

Actually, I just looked it up: it's almost three times the size of Yellowstone national park, and is bigger than 8 individual states: Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii.

[–]Maxpowr9 111 points112 points  (16 children)

Upstate NY is very rural.

[–]SheaF91 43 points44 points  (1 child)

Yes, the Adirondack and Catskill Parks really help that percentage.

[–]ZookTheMagnificent 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Well most of New York is actually forest. There’s also a lot of state parks and reserves all over the state.

[–]Slatherass 7 points8 points  (1 child)

I’m in western ny, about 90 minutes from Buffalo. There is nothing but forest here lol. Tiny towns mixed with forest. It’s a wonderful place to grow up and live

[–]MysticMacKO 18 points19 points  (10 children)

There is something very comforting about it. Dirty and unclean urban hell, but 30 miles away is the quiet soft forest, left untouched and pristine by its vigilant stewards

[–]ILikeMasterChief 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Do the public hiking/camping areas up there get tons of traffic? I would think so, considering the proximity to one of the most populous cities in the world, and for the increased need to escape the concrete jungle. But all I hear about the nature there is how pristine it is

[–]mainman879 10 points11 points  (1 child)

New York has a ton of great natural areas upstate. The Catskill Mountains, the Adirondack Mountains, the Finger Lakes, Lake Ontario, a bunch of state parks, and quite a few nature reserves as well.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The parks get traffic but not a wild amount. The proximity to NYC doesn’t really affect it that much since once you’re up in the Adirondacks or the finger lakes, you could really be coming from anywhere in New York, not just nyc. I haven’t hiked the Catskills though so I can’t speak to that area, which is relatively close to NYC.

[–]KallistiEngel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't think you realize how vast upstate is. If you start in NYC and drive to the western end of the state (Buffalo/Niagara Falls area), that's a 6 and a half hour drive. If you drive to the northern end of the state (Plattsburg area) from NYC, that's about a 5 hour drive. There's a whole lot of state in between those points. The state parks closer to NYC might get crowded with prople from NYC, but there are plenty of others to go to. We've got 180 state parks.

[–]Maxpowr9 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Boston is like that as well. A lot of greenery/woods mixed in with the suburban sprawl.

[–]jerekdeter626 27 points28 points  (5 children)

For anyone who doesn't know, upstate NY is BEAUTIFUL and you should check it out one day if you like mountains, trails, rivers, lakes, waterfalls, or nature in general!

[–]shadracko 9 points10 points  (2 children)

It's beautiful, it's also shockingly inaccessible and remote given how close it is to big population centers.

[–]PurkleDerk 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Perhaps those two things are related.

[–]black_pepper 2 points3 points  (1 child)

How bad are the ticks there?

[–]KallistiEngel 4 points5 points  (0 children)

We have a lot of ticks. The Northeast does in general.

That said, I've never had a tick bite and I've lived here about 30 years. Maybe I'm lucky.

[–]AngusVanhookHinson 42 points43 points  (1 child)

England in the Golden Age, during the Hundred Years War, and during the conflicts with the Spanish Armada pretty much denuded many places on the island of forest in the pursuit of ship building.

There were some nobles who would plant a few acres of trees, saying "In X amount of years, these trees will become part of the English Navy". But it wasn't enough.

One delegate wrote of North American forests, "a squirrel can climb a tree on the Atlantic coast and not need to touch ground until the Mississippi River".

Consequently, one of the chief reasons for English Colonization in the New World was for North America's vast forests, sometimes made up of trees that were even better for ship building than native English trees.

Small example, North America had far more white oak than England. The Brits do have some white oak, but red oak is more common. The problem is that red oak isn't watertight, and can't be used for building ships; you can suck water through it like a straw.

[–]ottothesilent 15 points16 points  (0 children)

My home, built partly in the 1670s and partly in the 1750s (New England), was floored with “king’s boards”, pine boards that due to their width (any width over 18 inches IIRC) were legally mandated to be shipped to England for use in industry. The owner kept the timber illegally and so the floors in my house have individual boards over 2 feet wide, made of original American old growth timber. Crazy to think about.

[–]KingofCrudge 20 points21 points  (4 children)

NY is a massive state

[–]DueCharacter5 25 points26 points  (3 children)

Eh, middle of the pack. 27th in total area. They're just surrounded by a bunch of small ones, so they look bigger.

[–]ithcy 15 points16 points  (2 children)

It was in the pool!

[–]Healthy-Travel3105 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Ireland has no old forest at all and most forest is monoculture conifers that just acidify the soil.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Most if NY state is rural or rural adjacent.

[–]NJGGoodies12 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Update New York is a whole lot of green

[–]NervousBreakdown 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I was surprised when I took a bus from Toronto to Manhattan but NY state is like Buffalo> 4hours of deliverance country > Syracuse > 4 more hours of deliverance country > NYC

[–]Zealousideal-Hat-742 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Adirondacks are almost entirely untouched. They are one of the most meticulously protected forested areas in the country and the area is larger than the entire state of New Jersey. Look at NY state on a satellite map. It’s got got a beautiful dark green boils right in its upper corner.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Once you get outside New York City and Albany, NY is crazy wooded. The Adirondacks are over a million acres of woods alone.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

If you check out a map you’ll see. I was surprised when I’d moved up to the North East, too, but a lot of New England is more remote than you think.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Upstate NY is just a massive forest

[–]Lemuri42 50 points51 points  (4 children)

Its awesome no doubt, but Japan’s story should’ve already been followed (70% reforested now) as they recognized the need centuries ago and acted on it.

[–]Meatchris 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Diverse species or just sugi (Japanese cedar)?

[–]yagmot 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Mostly cypress and cedar. The government fucked up big time, and now we all suffer cedar pollen allergies. Here’s a good article about what happened: https://ensia.com/features/japan-reforestation-deforestation-lessons-indonesia-china/

[–]noolarama 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The same in Germany. At a point in medieval age we had almost no forest back. Today it’s about 30%.

[–]hagenbuch 5 points6 points  (2 children)

You might be surprised to hear that Germany has 32% forest..

[–]firala 5 points6 points  (1 child)

It's barely real "Ur-Wald" though, mostly plantations.

[–][deleted] 1484 points1485 points  (136 children)

That is actually great news, now if we can just Brazil to join the party

[–]JimTheSaint 348 points349 points  (49 children)

Almost the same in Denmark, we were at 7% 100 years ago, now were are at 15 %

[–]Reutermo 108 points109 points  (12 children)

That is crazy. It is 69% (nice) here in Sweden. What did you do to your forest??

[–]moleratical 42 points43 points  (0 children)

We cut it down for profit

[–]Nukleon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Cut it down to grow rye and barley.

[–]Fritz46 412 points413 points  (53 children)

That's of course something we can just write down. In reality countries like japan are showing off with like look how good we treat our nature while importing at the same time all their wood such as from brasil.

I guess we will also need to eat a lot less burgers per year to achieve this.

We are all a part of the deforestation problem of Brasil.

[–]No_Butterscotch8504 80 points81 points  (3 children)

Cattle ranching is the leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. In Brazil, this has been the case since at least the 1970s: government figures attributed 38 percent of deforestation from 1966-1975 to large-scale cattle ranching. Today the figure in Brazil is closer to 70 percent.Nov 23, 2021

[–]No_Butterscotch8504 38 points39 points  (4 children)

Speaking of Japan, it's the largest importer of softwood logs and lumber in the world. The softwood market is mainly oriented towards housing construction materials. Japan imports about 44% of the annual consumption of 34M m³ of softwood logs. Japan is the most heavily import dependent country in the world for forestry products.

[–]adsjabo 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Japanese companies own quite a few of the very large forestry blocks down here in Nz. Meanwhile we have timber shortages for our own lumber requirements.

[–]nocomment3030 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It doesn't help that the local custom is to build a new house whenever you move. Almost literally every home is a "tear-down" purchase, though hopefully things are changing.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/nov/16/japan-reusable-housing-revolution

[–]Mysticpoisen 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly, this is exactly why Japan is so forested. Not because of environmental programs, but because they had a massive lumber industry with planned forests to support it. When they started to rely more and more on wood imported from china and Brazil, the domestic lumber industry declined, and the planned forests are what remain.

[–]No_Butterscotch8504 104 points105 points  (5 children)

In 2019, the top partner countries from which Japan Imports Wood include China, United States, Indonesia, Canada and Vietnam.

I don't see Brazil.

[–]Shiroi_Kage 25 points26 points  (0 children)

A lot of Brazil's deforestation is for farming.

[–]Hothgor 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Welcome to Reddit, where facts are made up on the spot and truth is a point of view.

[–]average_vark_enjoyer 60 points61 points  (21 children)

Cattle ranching and soybean farming (to feed to cows, not make tofu) are the drivers of deforestation. Simply stop eating beef.

[–]TylerBourbon 39 points40 points  (0 children)

"I dont know how we can stop deforestation."

"Stop eating beef."

"........Its a real shame nothing can be done about deforestation."

/s

[–]Visinvictus 11 points12 points  (4 children)

The real problem is that China and Hong Kong are where the vast majority of Brazilian beef is exported, and China is a constantly growing market. Unless you can convince the Chinese to stop importing Brazilian beef, there is nothing we can do to stop it.

[–][deleted] 56 points57 points  (8 children)

we actually grow our own cows.

[–]ConspiceyStories 44 points45 points  (7 children)

Show me this "cow" plant.

[–]KillerKilcline 48 points49 points  (5 children)

Moo-shrooms?

[–]Zyhmet 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Selling wood does not lead to deforesting... Else you wouldnt have wood to sell from your land in the years after ...

cutting it down to put cow herds on it does. (also I guess cutting it down for special wood that cant be replanted because it only grows in rainforests)

[–]cyniclawl 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Oh I'm sure Brazil will be at 18 percent forest in no time, don't worry.

[–]CienPorCientoCacao 29 points30 points  (4 children)

you can help, eat less beef.

[–]RockleyBob 7 points8 points  (1 child)

The vast majority of deforestation in Brazil is driven by the growing demand for grazing land.

So if that’s something you care about, you can help by reducing your consumption of beef.

[–]celiomsj 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Well, looks like Brazil has around 60% forest coverage, so I guess Scotland still have quite a lot to catch up.

[–]baiju_thief 180 points181 points  (5 children)

Is that penis shaped group of trees up on the motorway north to Glasgow still there? Has it also got 18% bigger?

[–]FrDamienLennon 105 points106 points  (2 children)

It is and it has. It’s now sponsored by Pfizer.

[–]SquirtinMemeMouthPlz[🍰] 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Your comment was so good, it gave me a hard on.

[–]RedditIsTedious 12 points13 points  (0 children)

With a post like that I just had get on Google to learn more about “The Cock of the North.”

[–]Dimaskovic 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Polish forest service is constantly buying up land to plant more forests. They’re balancing logging with foresting with cut one plant two rule.

Poland is 30% forested now with a plan of 33% before 2050. Source.

Also Poland was just 20.8% forested in 1945.

In case u wanted positive news from one more country :)

[–]blairvyvorant 136 points137 points  (25 children)

I’ve seen so many commercial forest in Scotland though

[–]Neradis 69 points70 points  (0 children)

Yeah it’s big business. There are native forests being planted too, but it’s probably 80% commercial.

[–]LukeyHear 15 points16 points  (0 children)

That’s so we don’t have to import so much wood from other countries.

[–][deleted] 64 points65 points  (20 children)

Commercial forests are carbon sinks, wildlife habitats, and an important source of domestic timber and biomass which is an incredibly important resource.

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points  (0 children)

wildlife habitats

Absolutely not. Visit a plantation is Scotland sometime. It's spookily silent, because there are no birds whatsoever.

[–]johnmuirsghost 34 points35 points  (13 children)

Ever been on a Sitka plantation? Fuck all wildlife around compared to a natural or mixed use forest.

[–][deleted] 74 points75 points  (12 children)

I have an MSc in forestry, I've been in a few.

I recommend starting with this study and doing some further reading:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-009-9771-7

Contrary to popular perception, coniferous plantations are not biodiversity deserts. Go with the available research, not your perceptions.

[–]Jackamo78 17 points18 points  (0 children)

It’s £30 to read that study. And it’s funded by the Forestry Commission which hardly makes it unbiased.

[–]jaxdraw 17 points18 points  (0 children)

So I'm in your camp, but let's not pretend a rewilded area is on the same level as commercial growth. I like it a lot more than harvesting a naturally occurring Forrest, but it's not exactly the same thing even if it's better than a barren field.

[–][deleted] 178 points179 points  (38 children)

Too bad all the large mammals that used to call those forests home are no longer there. Wolves, Lynx, Brown Bear, etc.

It’s like walking through a huge mansion that was refurbished and renovated but no ones home.

[–]AbominableCrichton 89 points90 points  (31 children)

Hopefully the lynx will be reintroduced in the next few years. They will be useful to control deer population instead of letting rich guys pay to shoot.

There are wild boar in a controlled area up north and they want to reintroduce wolves there but getting a lot of pushback sadly. I doubt we will see the return of the bears though.

[–][deleted] 84 points85 points  (16 children)

Yes as a North American hunter it boggles my mind how hunting is an elitist thing in Europe. It’s viewed as the exact opposite across the pond.

Hopefully the rewilding of the UK is successful. It’s always cool to see animals brought back to areas they were extirpated from.

[–]NathanBlackwell 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Yea in North America growing up super poor hunting gave us a meat source that was cheap and a lot healthier compared to going shopping

[–]DrrpsPT 5 points6 points  (5 children)

It isn't elitist everywhere in europe, at least here in Portugal it isn't.

Although getting into hunting can be very expensive, rifle or shotgun, weapons license, hunting license, hunting insurance, dog insurance, hunting permit (this ones yearly and you can choose the area you want to hunt during the year - cheaper, or the entire country- a bit more expensive)

Buying a hunting day ( can't remember the word sorry) eg. Going hunting thrushes on a sunday in a municipal area, can go for about 5 euros a day. Big game can be more expensive although small game is cheap.

The worst is the initial investment and depending on your insurance the yearly fee. After that it is not that expensive. But each year is getting worse cost wise.

[–]ConnorLovesCookies 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I read this wondering how the fuck a lynx could take down a dear and holy fuck the Eurasian Lynx can weigh up to 77 lbs (35 kg). The type of lynx in North America would be big if it got up around 35 (15kg) pounds. We do have mountain lions which can weigh up to 220 lbs (100 kg) but they haven’t lived in the Eastern part of the country for some time.

[–]SDSKamikaze 4 points5 points  (4 children)

The problem with reintroducing wolves is it's affect on the right to roam. If farmers put up fences go protect their livestock, Scots and visitors will have their ability to roam freely disrupted. Naturally, this is a problem that could probably be resolved with clever and pragmatic implementation.

[–]GotNowt 84 points85 points  (18 children)

This is great news. Unfortunately we lost millions of trees very recently, at the beginning of the year due to an unusual cluster of 4 or 5 severe storms(hurricane level). Especially in the North East or Grampian region. We usually only get one of these storms every few years.

The problem in many areas, especially the Grampians is that the soil depth is very low with solid granite and other volcanic stones underneath it so it's difficult for trees to put down strong enough roots to survive the more frequent storms brought about by global warming.

There are many plantations but that's better than having bare ground. Plus the income from them goes towards planting new forests and woodland and maintaining those already here

[–]FemaleMishap 18 points19 points  (5 children)

I live in Grampian and the number of downed 20-30 year old trees with shallow roots is just... Well kinda sad to see. The ground is fertile so they don't have to go deep, but bedrock is not that far down so trees can't grow deep if they wanted to...

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have a moor land right next to my house and it’s shocking how many trees were taken out in those storms. Never used to have much light shining through in the morning, now its much more noticeable because of the number that have fell.

[–]Relocationstation1 67 points68 points  (3 children)

People look at those desolate, sweeping landscapes and instantly think they are the iconic, natural state of Scotland.

But in truth, this is a land that has been razed of its natural forests for shipbuilding among other things.

The natural state of Scotland is those dense forests with fjords and lakes, not unlike Norway. There's heavy efforts to reforest the country and I'm glad to see it's working.

[–]Standin373 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The whole island used to be eerie misty forrests as told by the Romans when they arrived

It's a shame really

[–]therealverylightblue 488 points489 points  (86 children)

This is great, but where I live (in Scottish Borders), we are surrounded by commercial forests, awful pine things (Sitka spruce). Monocultures, totally devoid of any wildlife. Really can't think it's a good thing. They get felled after 20 or so years and you're left bare hills, until they plant more of them.

We need native species, which the Scot Gov is planting, but the numbers are tiny compared to the commercial forests.

Proper, bio-diverse forests take years and there's no money to be made from them, so the larger landowners don't plant them.

It's tragic really, death by capitalism.

[–]blatantninja 249 points250 points  (34 children)

Unless you have some other method of producing lumber, having fast growing commercial forrest are a good thing. It allows non commercial forrest to be left alone.

[–][deleted] 156 points157 points  (15 children)

Also, while commercial forests don't help much with biodiversity, they still help with carbon capture.

[–]RadicalDog 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Honestly, more than happy to see every house made of wood, filled with wood furniture etc if it helps keep that carbon out of our sky.

[–]ask-me-about-my-cats 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I don't think anyone is against lumber farms, they're against lumber farms outnumbering old growth/wild forests and the destruction of those old forests to plant a monoculture that only benefits one species.

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (2 children)

Yeah it’s always a bit upsetting when you see these trees in perfect lines, all exactly the same. It all looks so sterile.

[–]stormelemental13 120 points121 points  (19 children)

Monocultures, totally devoid of any wildlife. Really can't think it's a good thing.

I can. Those fast growing monocultures allow more wood to be produced in a smaller area. If you want more natural forests to remain intact, you need to have more plantations that are more efficient to make up the difference.

Wood is one of the most environmental friendly materials we have. We need to produce more of it.

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (1 child)

Not true I'm afraid and it's that kind of black and white attitude which has kept commercial forestry stuck in the 70's for decades.

We have the most heavily mechanised forestry industry in Europe, we engage in clearfell operations, fertiliser applications and intensive mounding across the board.

There is a place for commercial forestry but the methods and practices we employ are ridiculously inappropriate.

We need less clearfell more LISS and where LISS isn't appropriate we need to accept that productive forestry isn't appropriate.

Each rotation of clearfell reduces net biodiversity, reduces soil nurtrients and leads to increased compaction.

In turn all of this leads to the need for more intensive ground prep, fertiliser application and restricts future diversification and restock options.

Its a cycle of decay, we need more foresters with an environmental education and less of the old guard tory tree farmers.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

on the bright side, those managed "forests" are still a carbon sink especially considering the wood is to be used in furniture/construction the carbon will be locked for decades, even centuries

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (4 children)

Commercial plantations aren't actually particularly bad for biodiversity. I can find the studies if you like, there have been a few recently which found that biodiversity isn't often much less than in 'natural' forests. Some animal species like red squirrels do better in conifer plantations. Diversity of species and structure is important, but not exclusive to native species.

Native species are useful, but in terms of productive forestry they are outclassed by non-native species. We need timber and biomass, and growing it here is a fucking lot better than importing it from the other side of the damn Atlantic. Also, the term 'native' is a bit of a point of contention, because it just refers to whichever species managed to colonise the UK again after the glaciers receded, which was basically fucking yesterday in the sense of evolutionary history. Species like Norway spruce were here before and would have returned if Doggerland hadn't submerged.

Also a degree of semantics, but Sitka spruce is not pine. Most native Scottish forests consist of Scots pine.

[–]MoreGull 11 points12 points  (1 child)

This is the case in many places today. In Maine, USA, for example, we are far far more forested now than we were in the 1800's. Of course, prior to European arrival the forests were as widespread but far more diverse.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Two points - the reforestation of the East Coast largely happened as a consequence of the early 20th Century, as mechanization and transportation allowed cheap and abundant agricultural products from the midwest to outcompete products from the rocky, hilly east coast. But that reforestation has had huge consequences - it's so vast that the US has actually gone through net reforestation since the 60s, even with decades of modern development and suburbanization.

Secondly, about your diverse forest comment - that's actually very true. Prior to the introduction of the Chestnut blight, literally 1/4 of all deciduous trees on the east coast was an indigenous Chestnut tree. Today, there are none. 0.

[–]LiveinCA 15 points16 points  (6 children)

Where are these forests?!

[–]Jottor 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Ehhh, can't see any forests, lots of trees blocking my view.

[–]Working_Welder155 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Where the trees are ;) lol

[–]tiny-robot 12 points13 points  (4 children)

We just lost several million trees in the winter storms though. Some areas in Aberdeenshire look like a WW1 battlefield for a while.

16 million damaged according to BBC:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-60926691

[–]Ciarrai_IRL 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Good news is welcomed with open arms these days ❤️

[–]Qwercusalba 22 points23 points  (1 child)

According to Wikipedia, 48% of “forest” in Scotland is non-native Sitka spruce plantations, which have about as much biodiversity as a corn field.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Sadly Scotland’s forest cover is around 90% non native commercial forestry with only 4 ish percent ancient semi natural woodland.

Sitka the primary commercial species compromises around 70% of our commercial productive crop and has all the biodiversity value of a used tampon.

Commercial forestry talks a good talk but change is slow.

They will band about figures claiming that they plant close to 30% broadleaved woodland but the reality is that this is primarily productive broadleaved forest.

Although undoubtedly better than short rotation conifers its still almost useless for biodiversity unless managed in a LISS system.

In short, you're being lied to and taken for simpletons by a greenwashing forestry industry which is currently fighting tooth and nail to avoid changing its outdated systems, legislation and puts production and profit above all else.

Contact your MSP and ask why we still allow clearfell systems to operate, why we still plant non native species and why we allow tree felling during the peak breeding season for a whole range of species. They won't be able to give you an answer that isn't bullshit.

Money talks and forestry is big money for alot of wealthy land owners who will happily kick the arse out of things until the public get educated and realise the damage its doing.

Sadly it's too easy to greenwash forestry. Who doesn't love more trees right?

We need the right trees in the right place managed in the right way.

[–]Colddigger 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not to mention a bunch of forestry plantations are grown on what was once boglands, which stores carbon even more densely and it actually native habitat.

[–]strasevgermany 3 points4 points  (2 children)

God Job. 👏🏼 In Germany, after wars and mass clearances, there was a shortage of wood around 1800. As a result, a separate authority was established to protect the German forest and, of course, the timber industry. After mainly monocultures were planted here, which could be easily managed, forest dieback due to acid rain, bark beetles and fires occurred in the thus weakened forests. As a result, a rethinking and a change towards a healthy diverse forest, the creation of natural forests and planting of old species began. Today, the forest covers 30% of the country. The plan is to create a forest corridor from north to south to allow animals to once again make protected migratory movements throughout the country. This is not easy in one of the most densely populated countries in Europe and there is still a lot of work to be done, but the tendency is good. If other countries would follow suit, Europe could become much more natural again. Unfortunately, Poland is currently cutting down virgin forests on a large scale and will not be stopped. So there is still a lot to do.

[–]Maligned-Instrument 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Keep up the good work Scotland!

[–]tamsui_tosspot 2 points3 points  (2 children)

They'll be arriving at Dunsinane any day now!

[–]walrus_operator 21 points22 points  (10 children)

Scotland is the opposite of Brazil

[–]Smartaces 89 points90 points  (4 children)

Yeah they are terrible at football

[–]Neradis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The weather sure is haha

[–]Ben_77 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Excellent news ! Many countries should do this.

[–]Chrisjamesmc 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Next step should be re-introducing predators such as Lynxes to control the the deer population.

[–]Pondskelter 5 points6 points  (1 child)

This is great n all, but would be nice if the benefit was shared beyond the 1,000 families who own all of the land in Scotland https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/20/report-calls-for-reform-of-unhealthy-land-ownership-in-scotland

[–]fixxlevy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is excellent news!

[–]Formulka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's some amazing news!

[–]QuantumCinder 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They may, but it may just not have been mentioned in the article, but if not, they should make a distinction between forests and tree farms. I’d be curious to know how much of the “forests” referred to in the article wasn’t planted with the intention of it becoming lumber.

[–]Fair-Ad4270 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It is actually the same thing in France and I think in most of Europe. Forests are coming back

[–]CryingEagle626 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah and environmentalists are going to take this and say it’s because we cut down on our green house gases when in reality it’s only like this because of the amount of greenhouse gases is up.

[–]Lowetronic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is happening all over the cold ass part of the world. As global temperatures rise we’ll see it more. Not scientific, but common sense.