Do I tie myself to a tree? Would you?

In a park near to where I live I've recently found out that planning permission has been granted to hack down most of the trees. They are mature, healthy trees which aren't dangerous. They just want to cut them down to make the place look more symmetrical, widen the paths, put in a bigger entrance to the place, that sort of thing.

I only heard about this last week, and the work is going ahead next Tuesday. It's too late to muster any legal resistance. Most people in the town don't know anything about these plans, and by the time word gets out on Wednesday it could all be over.

So, do I tie myself to the trees to stop them doing this? I don't really see myself as an eco-warrior, but some things are just wrong and have to be resisted. What would you do?

 

i had experienced same situation about 6 yrs ago; there is a park near my house and it was full of healthy trees; though all the trees were along the boundary but unfortunately not symeetrical coz thso were not planted by the society designers (they had just removed other trees leaving those which were at boundary) and they were cut down. I really wanted to stop that massacre but it was never possible for me to stop them. i dont think that you can do something to save those trees;

 

You can call any social/eco organization of your town, and they would come for the rescue.

Finding their number should'nt be a problem i guess.

 

Around here, they only cut down trees who have a habit of eating people's kites or dropping branches on unsuspecting passer-bys. Its the dangerous trees you have to worry about, sometimes its hard to tell a nice tree from a dangerous one.

 

I'm afraid you might be right. They have the planning permission, and it would take a lot of willing volunteers to do the whole sitting in trees thing 24/7.

 

call for back up...dont do it alone

 

Tie yourself to a tree, do it and send pics here.
Get back up too...

 

Actually, the PR thing would work great.

Tie yourself to a tree and send out a paid press release to PRWeb. I'd donate for the cause and I'm sure some fellow DPer's would as well.

 

You can always bring a fork in case you need to stab the fuckers in the head..

 

Viva la resistancé!!!

 

The only time I was ever tied to a tree was after it was cut down and molded into a bed frame.

 

Don't falling coconuts kill thousands of people each year?

 

Em, so what? Someone has obviously decided the trees need taking down. Leave them to it.

If you really want to do a 'green thing' mount a campaign in the local press for at least an equivalent number of trees to be planted somewhere else by the people doing the cutting. They'll jump at the chance of some eco-friendly press.

 

The point is, these are big trees that provide shelter and food for lots of wildlife. Even if they plant a sapling to replace each one next winter, it won't be enough. Birds can't nest in saplings or feed off them, so it will be 20 years or so before the park recovers.

The planners are either morons, or they want rid of the trees because they cost money to maintain or some other such nonsense. Insurance in case a branch falls on someone's head, or whatever.

Thanks for all the encouragement ... I think.

Things may have changed since I first posted, and a lot of people have signed a petition and made complaints. The local press is onto it too. Now we just have to wait and see how the developers react, whether they go ahead regardless, or delay work because of all the bad publicity.

 

You probably have the nail on the head there. And if you're right, then naming and shaming people responsible could be all it takes. There's more than the trees to this scandal: the whole thing has already cost thousands of pounds, before any work has even been carried out. That's partly why some people are keen to see something go ahead, no matter how badly thought out it is.

 

Of course it will take 20 years minimum for the park to recover but you tying yourself to a tree will result in nothing, except perhaps special surveillance by Special Branch (pardon the pun, heh) and a place on an MI5 'subversive' list for life. I take it you are in the UK?

They have planning permission, right? Which means that the planning department and planning committee approved it. It also means there was a period during which any member of the public who felt that granting the planning permission would adversely affect them or the environment could object. Seems that nobody did and the considered opinion of the planning department was the removal of the trees, ergo, the trees are coming down whether you like it or not.

Giving 'them' a way to save face and appear environmentally friendly by suggesting they plant at least as many trees as they remove but preferably more, is the best you can hope to achieve as a lone voice.

btw, as far as I know, they cannot remove the trees during the nesting season (April - Sept), planning permission or not.

 

True, they have planning permission, and here I feel guilty for not being more vigilant. The original plans we all saw made no mention of trees coming down, and in fact had all the trees intact. But permission was actually granted for revised plans, which hardly anyone bothered to look at. Most of us assumed they wouldn't be much different from the first proposals. I think by that point everyone was heartily fed up with the process, which have taken a good 3 years from the initial consultation, to get to this point. That will teach us.

I think it all depends on whether or not birds are actually living in the trees. I think a few of them may have nests in them, but not the majority.