| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Rivers etc
The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid
floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 11:42, John wrote:
The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. If you dredge the water comes quicker from upstream, so builds up quicker at accumulation points because it arrives at a faster rate. |
Rivers etc
On Tuesday, 25 February 2020 11:42:58 UTC, John wrote:
The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. Dredging a section might well speed up flow through that part of the river. But that means the next section gets the water more quickly and it might not be able to cope. The flooding of 2014, if I remember correctly, was at least moved by changes ot the Thames. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26111598 |
Rivers etc
John Not.responding.@dotcom wrote:
The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. As others have said, speeding the flow to areas that cant cope with it is one problem. The other is that dredged material is rarely taken away, its dumped on the river banks. If this is done repeatedly you end up with a river running in an elevated €ścanal€ť completely above the surrounding land level. A breech of the bank can lead to catastrophic local flooding. Tim -- Please don't feed the trolls |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 11:42, John wrote:
The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. They are of course lying. To cover their arses. Cummings should sack them. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. The only thing you need to understand is that incompetent people lie to preserve their egos, their status and their jobs. -- How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think. Adolf Hitler |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 11:53, Pancho wrote:
On 25/02/2020 11:42, John wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. If you dredge the water comes quicker from upstream, so builds up quicker at accumulation points because it arrives at a faster rate. Poor old Pancho. That's why you START by dredging at the bottom - the estuary. -- There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy. |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 13:01, Tim+ wrote:
John Not.responding.@dotcom wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. As others have said, speeding the flow to areas that cant cope with it is one problem. The other is that dredged material is rarely taken away, its dumped on the river banks. If this is done repeatedly you end up with a river running in an elevated €ścanal€ť completely above the surrounding land level. A breech of the bank can lead to catastrophic local flooding. Tim I cant believe you actually believe that. -- There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy. |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 13:56, Chris Hogg wrote:
On 25 Feb 2020 13:01:10 GMT, Tim+ wrote: John Not.responding.@dotcom wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. As others have said, speeding the flow to areas that cant cope with it is one problem. The other is that dredged material is rarely taken away, its dumped on the river banks. If this is done repeatedly you end up with a river running in an elevated €ścanal€ť completely above the surrounding land level. A breech of the bank can lead to catastrophic local flooding. But only if the level of water in the 'canal' gets above that of the surrounding countryside, which, if it does, would have been flooded anyway regardless of whether the banks had been artificially raised. In fact raising the banks will offer some degree of protection for the surrounding countryside, which it wouldn't have if they weren't there. It doesn't make things worse. Of course. I used to live 6foot below the normal river level on the fens. Never got flooded because they (a) dredged all the canals in east Anglia (b) have vast polders that they can release flood-water into to relieve the pressure on the rivers. The ONLY real unplanned flooding happened in Cambridge and upstream outside the fen management area. Water management is a very old and well understood set of techniques, that have been totally ignored by 'environmentalists' because they thought they knew better. -- €śThe fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 11:53, Pancho wrote:
On 25/02/2020 11:42, John wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. If you dredge the water comes quicker from upstream, so builds up quicker at accumulation points because it arrives at a faster rate. So, the NIMBY approach would be to want everything downstream of me thoroughly dredged, but nothing upstream of me? |
Rivers etc
In article 6,
John Not.responding.@dotcom wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. I'd love to see some calculations that prove that dredging would have allowed those rivers to carry all the recent rain away safely. And if you really did make them that deep, not much use for those who moor a boat at the bottom of their garden? Or commercial operators on the river? Others who use them for pleasure, etc? -- *A backward poet writes inverse.* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Rivers etc
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote: The only thing you need to understand is that incompetent people lie to preserve their egos, their status and their jobs. Ah - your life story again. -- *WHY IS THERE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON SOUR CREAM? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 14:16, GB wrote:
On 25/02/2020 11:53, Pancho wrote: On 25/02/2020 11:42, John wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. If you dredge the water comes quicker from upstream, so builds up quicker at accumulation points because it arrives at a faster rate. So, the NIMBY approach would be to want everything downstream of me thoroughly dredged, but nothing upstream of me? In general the upstream part of a river is vulnerable to tree removal. Three lined valleys retain water better and release its slower. The middle sections are vulnerable and need flood plains to be available - more than ever if they are down from valleys that have been logged. Further towards the estuaries the problem is capacity and dredging improves that massively. In general a river twice as deep can carry twice as much water. Trees and flooding flood plains buffers: dredging improves flow. It really is that simple. Building banks higher also helps specific locations. And use of locks and flood barriers can control rates to below the maximum available on the dredged channel, but not above it. No one actually bothers to study and understand this however. DEFRA is full of left wing politicians, not hydrologists -- "First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your oppressors." - George Orwell |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 11:42, John wrote:
The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. Anyway, whatever the cause the Aire has burst in bank at Snaith and there's a classic car garage flooded out. Bill |
Rivers etc
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote: No one actually bothers to study and understand this however. DEFRA is full of left wing politicians, not hydrologists Odd your pals the Tories allowed this after 10 years in power? But perhaps only those committed to the environment can afford to work there after the severe budget cuts during austerity? -- *There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 11:42, John wrote:
The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. The actual claim is that it does not help prevent flooding *under extreme conditions*. This article, which addresses the same question after an earlier period of flooding explains the problem in detail: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ameron-farmers -- Colin Bignell |
Rivers etc
One issue is that they attempt to keep water from going down too fast in
case it floods areas that have high priced properties which might be vulnerable, but if they had not allowed building on flood plains in the first place they would not be in this mess. Brian -- ----- -- This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from... The Sofa of Brian Gaff... Blind user, so no pictures please Note this Signature is meaningless.! "John" Not.responding.@dotcom wrote in message 2.236... The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. |
Rivers etc
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:13:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/02/2020 13:56, Chris Hogg wrote: On 25 Feb 2020 13:01:10 GMT, Tim+ wrote: John Not.responding.@dotcom wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. As others have said, speeding the flow to areas that cant cope with it is one problem. The other is that dredged material is rarely taken away, its dumped on the river banks. If this is done repeatedly you end up with a river running in an elevated €ścanal€ť completely above the surrounding land level. A breech of the bank can lead to catastrophic local flooding. But only if the level of water in the 'canal' gets above that of the surrounding countryside, which, if it does, would have been flooded anyway regardless of whether the banks had been artificially raised. In fact raising the banks will offer some degree of protection for the surrounding countryside, which it wouldn't have if they weren't there. It doesn't make things worse. Of course. I used to live 6foot below the normal river level on the fens. Never got flooded because they (a) dredged all the canals in east Anglia (b) have vast polders that they can release flood-water into to relieve the pressure on the rivers. The ONLY real unplanned flooding happened in Cambridge and upstream outside the fen management area. Water management is a very old and well understood set of techniques, that have been totally ignored by 'environmentalists' because they thought they knew better. Agree 100% -- Debian 10.2 "Buster" |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 14:16, GB wrote:
So, the NIMBY approach would be to want everything downstream of me thoroughly dredged, but nothing upstream of me? Yes, but. Nimby = Position your back yard on high ground. |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 13:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/02/2020 11:53, Pancho wrote: On 25/02/2020 11:42, John wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. If you dredge the water comes quicker from upstream, so builds up quicker at accumulation points because it arrives at a faster rate. Poor old Pancho. That's why you START by dredging at the bottom - the estuary. Just explaining how it worked. But I'm OK, I live up a hill, it just needs that wall you were promising. |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 14:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/02/2020 13:56, Chris Hogg wrote: On 25 Feb 2020 13:01:10 GMT, Tim+ wrote: John Not.responding.@dotcom wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. As others have said, speeding the flow to areas that cant cope with it is one problem. The other is that dredged material is rarely taken away, its dumped on the river banks. If this is done repeatedly you end up with a river running in an elevated €ścanal€ť completely above the surrounding land level. A breech of the bank can lead to catastrophic local flooding. But only if the level of water in the 'canal' gets above that of the surrounding countryside, which, if it does, would have been flooded anyway regardless of whether the banks had been artificially raised. In fact raising the banks will offer some degree of protection for the surrounding countryside, which it wouldn't have if they weren't there. It doesn't make things worse. Of course. I used to live 6foot below the normal river level on the fens. Never got flooded because they (a) dredged all the canals in east Anglia (b) have vast polders that they can release flood-water into to relieve the pressure on the rivers. The ONLY real unplanned flooding happened in Cambridge and upstream outside the fen management area. Water management is a very old and well understood set of techniques, that have been totally ignored by 'environmentalists' because they thought they knew better. Nobody knows better than you. |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 14:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: The only thing you need to understand is that incompetent people lie to preserve their egos, their status and their jobs. Ah - your life story again. He has a brain injury apparently. |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 17:44, mm0fmf wrote:
On 25/02/2020 14:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 25/02/2020 13:56, Chris Hogg wrote: On 25 Feb 2020 13:01:10 GMT, Tim+ wrote: John Not.responding.@dotcom wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. As others have said, speeding the flow to areas that cant cope with it is one problem. The other is that dredged material is rarely taken away, its dumped on the river banks. If this is done repeatedly you end up with a river running in an elevated €ścanal€ť completely above the surrounding land level. A breech of the bank can lead to catastrophic local flooding. But only if the level of water in the 'canal' gets above that of the surrounding countryside, which, if it does, would have been flooded anyway regardless of whether the banks had been artificially raised. In fact raising the banks will offer some degree of protection for the surrounding countryside, which it wouldn't have if they weren't there. It doesn't make things worse. Of course. I used to live 6foot below the normal river level on the fens. Never got flooded because they (a) dredged all the canals in east Anglia (b) have vast polders that they can release flood-water into to relieve the pressure on the rivers. The ONLY real unplanned flooding happened in Cambridge and upstream outside the fen management area. Water management is a very old and well understood set of techniques, that have been totally ignored by 'environmentalists' because they thought they knew better. Nobody knows better than you. Plenty do, but none working in DEFRA -- "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them" Margaret Thatcher |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 17:45, mm0fmf wrote:
On 25/02/2020 14:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote: The only thing you need to understand is that incompetent people lie to preserve their egos, their status and their jobs. Ah - your life story again. He has a brain injury apparently. No, I don't. More lies. I have at least 4 chronic sub lethal conditions but none of them are brain injuries -- "Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them" Margaret Thatcher |
Rivers etc
"Tim+" wrote in message ... John Not.responding.@dotcom wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. As others have said, speeding the flow to areas that cant cope with it is one problem. The other is that dredged material is rarely taken away, its dumped on the river banks. Yes, If this is done repeatedly you end up with a river running in an elevated €ścanal€ť completely above the surrounding land level. No you dont. The whole point of dredging is to keep the bottom of the river at the original low level. A breech of the bank can lead to catastrophic local flooding. |
Rivers etc
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:13:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Water management is a very old and well understood set of techniques, that have been totally ignored by 'environmentalists' because they thought they knew better. And ironically managing vegetation with fire to prevent wildfires was also well understood by the indigenous people of Australia. Like hell it was in the parts of Australia that has seen the recent bushfires. Until we stopped them ... That didnt happen either. |
UNBELIEVABLE: It's 05:32 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for almost TWO HOURS already!!!! LOL
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 05:32:35 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again: FLUSH senile asshole's senile troll**** 05:32? LOL You already got ANY idea when you will try to go back to bed again, you clinically insane 85-year-old senile ****head? -- Bod addressing senile Rot: "Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of trouble." Message-ID: |
Rivers etc
Jethro_uk wrote:
It's embarrassing that the Romans probably had a better grasp of hydrology than our modern "experts". Hmm. #Paul |
Rivers etc
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 16:51:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:13:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Water management is a very old and well understood set of techniques, that have been totally ignored by 'environmentalists' because they thought they knew better. And ironically managing vegetation with fire to prevent wildfires was also well understood by the indigenous people of Australia. Until we stopped them ... ...and introduced sheep and rabbits. "sheep were cheap, water was available and graziers relied on saltbush and scrub to provide quality feed when overgrazing had destroyed the perennial grass. That utterly mangles the real story as does his original ignorant claim. Rabbits, naively introduced in 1859, were in plague numbers over most of southeast Australia by the end of the century - busily digging out the roots of native vegetation, and ring-barking shrubs." They don't in fact do either. From this interesting article in WUWT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/...te-truth-bomb/ Curry points out that severe drought, 'record' temperatures and devastating forest fires have all happened before, despite manipulation of the temperature statistics by the Ozzie Bureau of Meteorology and the predictable but totally false claims by the alarmists that it's all due to climate change. "The years 1871, 1895-1902, 1926, 1928, 1931, 1939, 1982 and 2009 each have their own Black day-of-the-week and notable high temperatures: the Black Friday fire of February 1931 burned 5 million ha. or 25% of the state of Victoria, claiming 12 lives, plus a million sheep and many cattle." And 1851 |
UNBELIEVABLE: It's 06:06 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for almost THREE HOURS already!!!! LOL
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 06:06:08 +1100, jon lopgel, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll**** 06:06??? LOL NO salvation for you in sight, senile Rodent? Not one person in RL for you to talk to? ONLY misery all night long for you again, you clinically insane subnormal idiot? -- The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot: "Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole." Message-ID: |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 11:42, John wrote:
The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. It often just moves the problem by pushing more water in a short time into another flood plain that has been built on. Maybe deep concrete lined culverts are the answer but I suspect those with picturesque riverside properties (during the summer) may object to this form of river management. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. It's often the "flooding" that brings the debris down the river where often it get trapped under bridges etc. These obstructions are usually cleared after the high fast flowing water has calmed down. -- mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
UNBELIEVABLE: It's 07:35 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for almost FOUR HOURS already!!!! LOL
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:35:59 +1100, jon lopgel, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: FLUSH senile asshole's troll**** 07:35??? LOL You are even dumber than everyone already knew you were! -- about senile Rot Speed: "This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage." MID: |
Rivers etc
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes On 25/02/2020 13:01, Tim+ wrote: John Not.responding.@dotcom wrote: The environment Agency claims that dredging rivers does not help to avoid floods. I really don't understand - Water does not pile up - unless there are restrictions to the flow. How often do we see bridges - perhaps with 3 arches - but the two outer ones are slted up or full of debris. This cannot be acceptable. As others have said, speeding the flow to areas that cant cope with it is one problem. The other is that dredged material is rarely taken away, its dumped on the river banks. If this is done repeatedly you end up with a river running in an elevated €ścanal€ť completely above the surrounding land level. A breech of the bank can lead to catastrophic local flooding. Tim I cant believe you actually believe that. I have it here. Upper Lea in Hertfordshire. The banks are hard: gravels and chalk marl. The Water Voles can't dig even if the Mink let them. Dredged 3 times over the last 60 years with all the spoil deposited within reach of the digger bucket. Most of the *flood plain* is 12-18" lower than the bank tops. -- Tim Lamb |
Rivers etc
In message , "Brian Gaff (Sofa 2)"
writes One issue is that they attempt to keep water from going down too fast in case it floods areas that have high priced properties which might be vulnerable, but if they had not allowed building on flood plains in the first place they would not be in this mess. Town planners do not like you building on hills unless all other space has been used. -- Tim Lamb |
Rivers etc
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:35:59 +1100, "jon lopgel" wrote: "Chris Hogg" wrote in message ...and introduced sheep and rabbits. "sheep were cheap, water was available and graziers relied on saltbush and scrub to provide quality feed when overgrazing had destroyed the perennial grass. That utterly mangles the real story as does his original ignorant claim. Rabbits, naively introduced in 1859, were in plague numbers over most of southeast Australia by the end of the century - busily digging out the roots of native vegetation, and ring-barking shrubs." They don't in fact do either. Well, in the UK, they dig holes, make warrens, undermine trees, and eat the bark of saplings. In open country, all newly planted bare-root tree whips have to be protected against rabbits, with 'tree-sleeves'. https://tinyurl.com/uztq6na And they were UK rabbits that were introduced into Oz. But they don't dig out the roots of native vegetation in Oz and they don't ring bark shrubs either. |
UNBELIEVABLE: It's 09:08 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard has been out of Bed and TROLLING for almost SEVEN HOURS already!!!! LOL
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:08:04 +1100, jon lopgel, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: FLUSH senile asshole's troll**** 09:08??? LOL And you STILL can't sleep you lonesome senile pest? Is it because these groups are the ONLY place where you can talk to people without them being able to get away from you? LOL -- Bod addressing senile Rot: "Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of trouble." Message-ID: |
Rivers etc
In message , jon lopgel
writes "Chris Hogg" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:35:59 +1100, "jon lopgel" wrote: "Chris Hogg" wrote in message ...and introduced sheep and rabbits. "sheep were cheap, water was available and graziers relied on saltbush and scrub to provide quality feed when overgrazing had destroyed the perennial grass. That utterly mangles the real story as does his original ignorant claim. Rabbits, naively introduced in 1859, were in plague numbers over most of southeast Australia by the end of the century - busily digging out the roots of native vegetation, and ring-barking shrubs." They don't in fact do either. Well, in the UK, they dig holes, make warrens, undermine trees, and eat the bark of saplings. In open country, all newly planted bare-root tree whips have to be protected against rabbits, with 'tree-sleeves'. https://tinyurl.com/uztq6na And they were UK rabbits that were introduced into Oz. But they don't dig out the roots of native vegetation in Oz and they don't ring bark shrubs either. Umm.. Climate difference? I suspect bark eating here is Winter months when there is less choice. They don't eat Elder bark. Perhaps Eucalyptus etc. is also unpalatable. -- Tim Lamb |
Rivers etc
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 23:07:04 +0000, Tim Lamb wrote:
Umm.. Climate difference? I suspect bark eating here is Winter months when there is less choice. Or no choice. The only time I've seen trees ring barked by rabbits was winter 2009/10 when we had snow cover for the best part of two months. None of the trees ring barked have died or shown any ill affects. -- Cheers Dave. |
Rivers etc
"Tim Lamb" wrote in message ... In message , jon lopgel writes "Chris Hogg" wrote in message . .. On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:35:59 +1100, "jon lopgel" wrote: "Chris Hogg" wrote in message ...and introduced sheep and rabbits. "sheep were cheap, water was available and graziers relied on saltbush and scrub to provide quality feed when overgrazing had destroyed the perennial grass. That utterly mangles the real story as does his original ignorant claim. Rabbits, naively introduced in 1859, were in plague numbers over most of southeast Australia by the end of the century - busily digging out the roots of native vegetation, and ring-barking shrubs." They don't in fact do either. Well, in the UK, they dig holes, make warrens, undermine trees, and eat the bark of saplings. In open country, all newly planted bare-root tree whips have to be protected against rabbits, with 'tree-sleeves'. https://tinyurl.com/uztq6na And they were UK rabbits that were introduced into Oz. But they don't dig out the roots of native vegetation in Oz and they don't ring bark shrubs either. Umm.. Climate difference? More likely plant difference. I suspect bark eating here is Winter months when there is less choice. They don't eat Elder bark. Perhaps Eucalyptus etc. is also unpalatable. And its not just eucs either, most of the shrubs arent eucs. |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 19:06, jon lopgel wrote:
"Jethro_uk" wrote in message ... On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:13:56 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Water management is a very old and well understood set of techniques, that have been totally ignored by 'environmentalists' because they thought they knew better. And ironically managing vegetation with fire to prevent wildfires was also well understood by the indigenous people of Australia. Like hell it was in the parts of Australia that has seen the recent bushfires. Until we stopped them ... That didnt happen either. Yes, it did. The evidence is all there. Go and find it. -- €śA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say, €śWe did this ourselves.€ť €• Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching |
Rivers etc
On 25/02/2020 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 07:35:59 +1100, "jon lopgel" wrote: "Chris Hogg" wrote in message ...and introduced sheep and rabbits. "sheep were cheap, water was available and graziers relied on saltbush and scrub to provide quality feed when overgrazing had destroyed the perennial grass. That utterly mangles the real story as does his original ignorant claim. Rabbits, naively introduced in 1859, were in plague numbers over most of southeast Australia by the end of the century - busily digging out the roots of native vegetation, and ring-barking shrubs." They don't in fact do either. Well, in the UK, they dig holes, make warrens, undermine trees, and eat the bark of saplings. In open country, all newly planted bare-root tree whips have to be protected against rabbits, with 'tree-sleeves'. https://tinyurl.com/uztq6na And they were UK rabbits that were introduced into Oz. Its clear that Lopgel is simply another person from whom the truth is whatever his ideology states it is, and evidence to the contrary is simply 'uninformed opinion'. He isn't worth arguing with. -- €śA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say, €śWe did this ourselves.€ť €• Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter