🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <326169E3.7766@easynet.co.uk>, sdef! <savage@easynet.co.uk>
writes
>If we ensure every tree is 'safe' then we are left with a parody of
>nature, a sanitised theme park where there is never any danger. 
>
snip
>I suspect though that their concern is more to do with the legacy of
>anal victorian tidyness and cleanliness we are still lumbered with, and
>the 'danger' is that their narrow and self-centered view of the world is
>threatened by views of wild, untamed, self-sufficient and rampant
>nature, so they must control it.
>
snip
I was sorry to hear that the NPA decided to fell these trees, but am
irritated by all this personal abuse directed at people who are just
doing their jobs. 
A while back on this thread I remarked that this whole affair is to do
with insurance company requirements and common law decisions. It is easy
to criticise when it is not you who is having to take responsibility. 

Discussion and research on the merits and management of old trees is
conducted enthusiastically and at a high level within the arboricultural
industry ( eg Ted Green on fungi in Windsor Park, or Roy Finch whose
work on ancient trees recently won him the Arb Assoc medal for services
to arboriculture). 

Most people who work with trees are interested in and sympathetic to
nature conservation. However we all have to work within the existing
legal framework. Instead of general diatribes against (assumed)
attitudes, better to look at 
A) alternatives
B) the specifics of the particular situation.
-- 
bex