UK Nature and Environment

350 readers

70 users here now

General Instance Rules:

No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia.
No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.
No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users.
Do not share intentionally false or misleading information.
Do not spam or abuse network features.

Community Specific Rules:

Keep posts UK-specific. There are other places on Lemmy to post articles which relate to global environmental issues (e.g. slrpnk.net).
Keep comments in English so that they can be appropriately moderated.

Note: Our temporary logo is from The Wildlife Trusts. We are not officially associated with them.

Our summer banner is a shot of Coombe Hill, Buckinghamshire by YungOnions.

founded 10 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Thousands of trees 'killed by cigarette butt fire' (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A cigarette butt is suspected to have caused a forest fire that is believed to have killed thousands of young trees.

Nests and charred wood have been found after flames ripped through thousands of trees in Harrow Hill in the Forest of Dean following a "short hot spell" in May.

Leoni Dawson, community ranger for Forestry England, said they were worried "this whole place is dead and gone".

It is thought no deer or boar were harmed due to a deer fence enclosing the area, but concerns remain for insects, reptiles, small mammals and bird nests.

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Back when more than a fraction of a percent of the population smoked, there used to be PSAs about this on television. I'm not a hundred percent sure that my memory is correct, but I think Smokey the Bear got involved in the campaign.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I don't think that Smokey the Bear featured in PSAs for this in the UK.

Rupert the Bear, possibly, but not Smokey.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Isn't it ... Some BUTTS cigarette?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A cigarette butt is suspected to have caused a forest fire that is believed to have killed thousands of young trees.Nests and charred wood have been found after flames ripped through thousands of trees in Harrow Hill in the Forest of Dean following a "short hot spell" in May.Leoni Dawson, community ranger for Forestry England, said they were worried "this whole place is dead and gone".It is thought no deer or boar were harmed due to a deer fence enclosing the area, but concerns remain for insects, reptiles, small mammals and bird nests.

Describing the site, Ms Dawson said: "You can see how dry it is, how brown and dead it is.

"She said their working assumption was the fire, likely started by a cigarette stub, had spread quickly because it was so dry after a few days of warm sunshine.The trees in the area where the fire started were only planted eight years ago.As the trees were not yet in leaf, the sunlight was able to penetrate the ground and dry it "quickly", which Ms Dawson said had enabled the flames to spread more rapidly.

Forestry England does not have specific records of what was at the site, but charred nests "beautifully lined with feathers" were found.

To prevent a similar situation from happening again, Ms Dawson urged visitors to be responsible.

"If you're going to smoke, carry a little pouch with you that you can put your butts in so you can dispose of them properly when you get home.

The original article contains 385 words, the summary contains 252 words. Saved 35%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[+] [email protected] -7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

cigarette butt fire

What an odd way of describing a bog-standard minuscule-scale forest fire.

I mean, only thousands of trees? How is that news? That sounds like only a few hectares burnt… something that might hit the local/neighbourhood-level news over here in Canada, where we have seen individual conflagrations consume many billions of trees in 2023 alone, even in regions that are classified as temperate rainforests.

And a “short hot spell” lasting only a few days? This is enough to raise alarm, and/or cause dangerous conditions? Wow.

Honestly, this article reads very, very oddly. As if it happened in a place which has never seen a forest fire before. The breathless reporting of such exceedingly minor “devastation” sounds more like something that had come out of the Amazon or the Congo during the monsoon season, where any forest fire at all during a torrential deluge would be equivalently notable.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

in Canada, where we have seen individual conflagrations consume many billions of trees in 2023

It has been estimated that there are approximately 3 billion trees in the UK in total. The UK has been assessed to be one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. Any fire that consumed 'many billions' of trees in the UK, would leave no trees left at all.

This is a local new story - local to the forest of Dean. It is unusual, however, in that it was a fire that affected (relatively recently planted) woodland at all. Typically in the UK, native woodland is a mixture of broadleaf species - pretty resistant to burning compared to conifers - and are often too wet to burn at all anyway. Even significant forest fires in the Forestry Commission's extensive conifer plantations are uncommon.

We do have much larger wildfires than this in the UK - but they are typically heathland or moorland fires, not in wooded areas. Species such as gorse and heather, which tend to dominate on heathland, are adapted to periodic fires and will recover relatively quickly. The main issues with those - as is mentioned with this incident - is death of the fauna in the area.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

In the UK we have a lot less unspoiled woodland and a much higher population density than Canada. We have to be careful that we don't let a few people ruin it for everyone else by being careless, hence the focus on the cause in this case.

And yes you're right, this hasn't historically been an issue, but climate change means we are much more likely to have forest fires now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Maybe it reads oddly to your North American-centric viewpoint, but frankly that's more of a you problem than one with the article.