Don't worry, we haven't cut down all our forests. We still have plenty of them, so whoever misinformed you that we had cut down all of them is wrong. I'd hate for you to spread even more wrong information, so I'm glad I was able to put you right on this topic.
Brits and handguns.
- Thread starter Ranb
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gun issues uk issues
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
We've planted plenty too. Only 250 square miles worth at kielder.
Well, about 99% of natural forest in Scotland has disappeared. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Forest
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Google earth shows a tiny patch (the "Forest of Dean" it appears), but scant forest besides that.
That's what, 16 miles square? Cook County Illinois alone, the most populated county in Illinois (5.2 million people) and which includes Chicago, has 106 square miles of forest.
I never intended to be understood as saying the UK cut down every last tree, but as far as forests go there's not much there for wild pigs and such to hide in.
Last edited:
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.,
It depends how you class 'natural', but even then, a lot of the deforestation of Britain can't really be sensibly blamed on 'British people', let alone the people of the UK, which was the original claim.
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.,
I'm glad, because that would not bear the slightest resemblance in any way to the truth, from any possible angle.
Rat
Not bored. Never bored.,
If I ignore the fact that you originally said "the UK", and if I charitably take British to mean "contemporarily inhabiting Great Britain", then it gets slightly closer.
Yes they were. But as the link you provided states, "Forests of this type were found all over what is now the island of Great Britain for a short period, before the climate began to slowly warm and the pinewoods retreated north into the Scottish Highlands, the last remaining climatic region suitable for them in the British Isles".
I don't deny that a good deal of GB was deforested deliberately (yes, by people), mainly to make grazing land or other agricultural land. A good deal of it was done before there was England as a political entity, let alone Great Britain or the UK.
We are a small country (about 230,000km2 )with a lot of people, so we don't have room for vast tracts of forest. We have about 23,000km2 of forest altogether. But if you really wanted to find out whether we still have forests there is no need to wrestle with Google Earth, Wiki can assuage your fears of us languishing forest-less. Here's a list of some of our forests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forests_in_the_United_Kingdom
I hope that stops you worrying that we have no forests or trees. Of course, that list doesn't include parkland or moorland, nor does it include the trees which line our suburban streets. Now you should be able to sleep easy, safe in the knowledge that we have plenty of trees; but if you need more information about our geography you need only ask, someone will help.
I hope that stops you worrying that we have no forests or trees. Of course, that list doesn't include parkland or moorland, nor does it include the trees which line our suburban streets. Now you should be able to sleep easy, safe in the knowledge that we have plenty of trees; but if you need more information about our geography you need only ask, someone will help.
Last edited:
Just for comparison (and also from wiki), the USA has:
" total forest area has been relatively stable for the last 100 years (currently about 747 million acres (3,020,000 km2)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States
No, 250 square miles is still 250 square miles, not 16 square miles. It might be 16 miles on one side (it isn't, as it's not a square), but the area is still 250 miles2. Miles are the same in the USA and the UK.
Cook County Illinois, Google informs me, is 1,635 miles2 and so 106 miles2 of forest is 6.48%. Great Britain is 230,000 km2 with 23,000 km2 of forest, or 10%. By that comparison, one which you chose, we have almost twice the forest by area which Cook County Illinois does.
Obviously Cook County Illinois is not representative of the whole USA, so I sought out this Wiki page which informed me that around 8.5% of the landmass of the USA is forest. I also found another page which estimated the total forested area at 747 million acres, less than the 769 million acres used in the Wiki page. Finally, I came across a which appears to be more authoritative which gave the amount of forest land in the USA at 10%, exactly the same as the UK.
Obviously it would be foolish would think that we would have the same absolute amount of forest over here; the landmass of the USA is approximately 40 times as big as Great Britain. GB has a population density of 260 people per km2, USA only 34 people per km2 so you have more space.
It would, however, be absolutely incorrect to suggest that GB has less forest proportionately to the USA. Most estimates I found via Google suggest that GB has a greater proportion of land as forest, one page put the proportion as the same.
I hope this helps dispel any lingering thoughts you might have had about Britain or the UK suffering from a lack of forests. Rejoice, for we have lots.
Huh, I read that link (page 3) and saw:
In 1997, 302 million hectares—
or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States—
was in forest land.
Which, for comparison, means:
1) The USA is 40 times as big
2) It has proportionately 3 times as much forest
Last edited:
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
I think you've misunderstood that figure, Agatha. I think it means the USA has 10% of the world's forest land.
This table shows that the US is about 31% forest, while the UK is about 12%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_area#Countries
Though why on earth this is important and not a total derail, I have no idea.
This table shows that the US is about 31% forest, while the UK is about 12%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_area#Countries
Though why on earth this is important and not a total derail, I have no idea.
Maybe means they need more pump action guns to clear the fauna from these more extensive forests. They got rid of the passenger pigeon OK https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=passenger+pigeon&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari but there's a bunch of other pesky stuff still in there.
scarlettinlondon
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 452
Peckham please for the wolves/bears/things and possibly a couple of tigers.
I shall form a pressure group.
Will make the place safer
Oops, I was wrong and I apologise. That's what I get for staying up until 2 am! Still, we do have plenty of forest and Wildcat can stop worrying on our behalf.
And no, I have no idea why this suddenly became important either. A distraction from the fact that most British people have no desire to own or use guns, perhaps.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
On the subject of the OP, like many of the other UK posters I personally would quite like a handgun gun but prefer the current situation where I forego the pleasure of a spot of target shooting in return for a society where gun crime and accidental shooting are so rare. Personally I don't know anyone for whom this is an issue or has any desire for the law to be changed.