Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 285 posts

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#91

Post by smcl »

cpr wrote: post #51
avar wrote: post #6

For reasons I won't go into the farming lobby is really strong in Iceland. Sheep run free-range around the entire island, if you'd like to grow something that sheep like to eat you need to fence it in. It's not like pretty much anywhere else in the western world where people who own grazing animals need to fence them in. Thus the sheep range far and wide and destroy Iceland's native low-lying forests. Iceland's nativ…

I saw the same thing on the island of Achill, Ireland. All sheep are allowed to roam the island freely, so if you want anything protected, you have to fence it in. And there are no trees to speak of. That could either be because of the harsh winds on this almost-westernmost point of Ireland, or (never thought of this until now) it could be the sheep. The government pays people 50 pounds per sheep per annum, so people…

Pounds in Ireland? I was curious if that was a typo or an old fact from pre-Euro days so I dug around a little about this subsidy/stipend, but couldn't find anything. Any ideas what it could be?

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#92

Post by rainbowmverse »

Simon_says wrote: post #63
avar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, half of it is on the North American continental plate, but those don't determine what constitutes a continent. If they did half of Japan would be in North America.

Don't leave us in suspense! What does determine what constitutes a continent?

The same thing that determines what counts as a planet. Flawed humans trying to categorize things so they're easier to think about.

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#93

Post by nvlr »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #76
ckinnan wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is actually a similar problem in the Northeastern United States. Deer are overpopulated (in my area 6x traditional level) because they have no predators and hunting is restricted. The deer eat all of the hardwood saplings. In many mid-Atlantic forests there are very few 10-20 year old hard wood trees, they don't survive the deer.

There's a really interesting article about how Yellowstone (a national park in the US) reintroduced wolves into the ecosystem, reducing the dear population, altering the ecosystem for the better: https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduc... https://youtu.be/ysa5OBhXz-Q

Like all things, there is another side to the story too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/opinion/is-the-wolf-a-rea...

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#95

Post by jamesblonde »

smcl wrote: post #91
cpr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw the same thing on the island of Achill, Ireland. All sheep are allowed to roam the island freely, so if you want anything protected, you have to fence it in. And there are no trees to speak of. That could either be because of the harsh winds on this almost-westernmost point of Ireland, or (never thought of this until now) it could be the sheep. The government pays people 50 pounds per sheep per annum, so people…

Pounds in Ireland? I was curious if that was a typo or an old fact from pre-Euro days so I dug around a little about this subsidy/stipend, but couldn't find anything. Any ideas what it could be?

Maybe cpr is british?

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#96

Post by rainbowmverse »

diego_moita wrote: post #28

For someone that lived in tropical places it is very awkward to see those videos on Iceland Air flights promoting tourism to Iceland and advertising its "rugged beauty", with lots of glaciers, geysers, volcanoes and ugly cold beaches with black sand. Sorry Icelanders, you seem to be lovely people but your country looks very ugly, barren, dead, sad and desolate. I can't see natural beauty without life.

Beauty without life is mostly about textures. It's easy to miss if you're looking for bright colors and motion, don't find them, and stop looking.

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#98

Post by riot504 »

ckinnan wrote: post #40
avar wrote: post #6

For reasons I won't go into the farming lobby is really strong in Iceland. Sheep run free-range around the entire island, if you'd like to grow something that sheep like to eat you need to fence it in. It's not like pretty much anywhere else in the western world where people who own grazing animals need to fence them in. Thus the sheep range far and wide and destroy Iceland's native low-lying forests. Iceland's nativ…

There is actually a similar problem in the Northeastern United States. Deer are overpopulated (in my area 6x traditional level) because they have no predators and hunting is restricted. The deer eat all of the hardwood saplings. In many mid-Atlantic forests there are very few 10-20 year old hard wood trees, they don't survive the deer.

It appears a simple solution of allowing hunting to occur would solve the problem. Why is hunting restricted?

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#99

Post by mitchtbaum »

Alex3917 wrote: post #90
mitchtbaum wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought chaga was a typo. Do you mean "chaga" the mushroom? Anyway, I meant my point about a key problem in general with trying to use taxes to fund important development projects.

> Do you mean "chaga" the mushroom? Yes, because it only grows on birch trees, but harvesting the mushroom can damage the trees. That was sort of the point. :-)

Ah. So, who on Iceland cultivates chaga mushrooms? What ongoing efforts might they have that overlap with the birch foresters? (connecting the dots)

Re: Iceland's attempts to replant its forests

#100

Post by rootbear »

diego_moita wrote: post #28

For someone that lived in tropical places it is very awkward to see those videos on Iceland Air flights promoting tourism to Iceland and advertising its "rugged beauty", with lots of glaciers, geysers, volcanoes and ugly cold beaches with black sand. Sorry Icelanders, you seem to be lovely people but your country looks very ugly, barren, dead, sad and desolate. I can't see natural beauty without life.

I was there in August and found it beautiful. De gustibus non disputandum est.
Post reply on HN