🚀 go-pugleaf

Tim Channon wrote:

> It occurs to me that the beeches are not specimen trees, but are a collective
> and it's the collective forming a landmark which is the item in trust.
> Such a landmark, where the trees were planted at the same time, is obviously
> a transient thing which cannot exist contiguously forever.
> As I read it, those responsible for the landmark are not suggesting destroying
> it but are simply managing it by replanting.
> If the subject or it's purpose are changed the trust has been broken.

Beech trees are quite capable of seeding themselves, they don't need 
anyone to come along and plant more. That's how they got here in the 
first place. Does anyone care about the non-human uses of this 
particular patch of land? (that is other than peripheral uses that arise 
as a result of the management.) If it's not being used to produce food, 
why do you need to manage it at all? I know of no unmanaged area in the 
world that is not beautiful and aesthetic. People who like to see 
neutered dominated nature should sit in their gardens.

> The opposition seems to be mostly based on heart.

There is too little of this left in our dismal grey civilisation, don't 
knock it.
-- 
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK