Quote:
|
I think your position of not accepting or even acknowledging the need for any tree to ever be removed no matter what is silly and immature.
|
I'm really not sure where Guy has ever stated such a thing? You could (and people seem very happy to) intimate that as being his feelings, but I can't say I have ever actually read him state that as his position.
Quote:
|
Might be interesting after this fence is in place to require all supporters to spend a night camped within the secured fence, during a wind storm
|
If you're writing about the Anne Frank tree, its really more of a pair of steel rings at two points on the trunk, than a fence.....As has been stated in many of the documents and reports the canopy of the tree has not been above the adjacent roof line since 2004...whilst there would be some wind loading in a storm the impacts on the current tree canopy would be less than you think.
I imagine if the foundation organised an evening vigil around the tree (in summer!) they would have many times more people wanting to spend the night there than could ever fit.....the specific history around this tree makes it extraordinarily important to a very great many Europeans (and others)
Very few of the professionals envolved in the project have ever argued that this is a model for any other tree...it has been about preserving this tree...and valuing this tree above others precisely because of its connection to the tragedy played out in the 30's and 40's.
Its also been about planting new trees from the seeds of this tree....its not a question of deciding between preservation or succession, it is about both, it is always about both....proper tree management has a time frame inside it that exceeds almost all other kinds of planning, management plans should run for at least 50yrs more realistically if they are to be any good they should run for far far longer. Succession planting, and allowing for predicted and unexpected evolutions in the micro-environments around tree communities are all parts of that.