DaveDay34 wrote:

An argument is that they would probably be burnt anyway, so why not buy
them and they are very common.

However, would you be happy for 100 year old English oaks to be pulled
up and sold as a sideline for building development in England? And if
you wouldn't, I really don't think you should be buying Tree Ferns,
however "trendy".
--
Larry Stoter



Larry, if the Oaks were going to be cut down or destroyed in any way
whatsoever, I'd rather they were sold off and relocated. I wouldn't be
bothered where to. If they went to China, I wouldn't care, at least they'd be
alive.

Very short term view point. By concentrating on individuals (whether
plants or animals) you miss the real problem - distruction of habitat.
And you give an excuse to developers - " it's OK to dig up all these
trees, they'll be planted somewhere else" Well, yes but the habitat that
allows such trees to thrive is destroyed. So, finally, you end up with
the native habitat gone and a few pathetic specimens strugling to
survive in "parks" or "gardens".

I think you have a problem with the NZ government's policy on development, and
that's another issue entirely. The only way to really address the issue in a
way that'd make you happy would be to stop development all together wherever
there are Dicksonia antarctica.

No - I am prepared to accept development. However, I'm not happy that
development is encouraged by Europeans buying Dicksonia antarctica. That
might just be the key that makes a questionable development financially
possible. By taking the money that can be made on selling this "waste"
product out of the financial equation, it might give locals enough
leaverage to stop development - if that is what they want. This trade
could be viewed as cultural imperialism.

As the NZ government are unlikely to stop all development where there are
Dicksonia antarctica I think relocation is a good second option to fall back
on. At least the ferns are being preserved, only being taken from sites that
are being developed, and the government are regulating. I'm not sure that you
actually understand all the issues involved here. Whether people buy
Dicksonias or not is unlikely to affect anything at all.

Dave.

Sorry, as I have said, providing a market for these plants might tip the
balance on a questionable financial development.

And the preservation of individual plants is not really very important -
it is the destruction of their habitat which is serious.

To go back to an emotional arguement, nobody in the UK would accept 100
year old oaks being pulled up as part of a development project and sold
in garden centres - so why is it acceptable for 100 year old tree fearns
to be cut down and sold in UK garden centres?

--
Larry Stoter