Tristan Hatton-Ellis wrote:

On 27/10/02 8:51 am, in article
, "Larry Stoter" wrote:

DaveDay34 wrote:

I don't think Larry understands how little the Dicksonia are actually
worth in NZ. They aren't worth developing a site just to get at them.
They wouldn't make the difference between a site being profitable to
develop or not. They don't tip the balance, and as the sites would be
developed anyway, it's better that the plants are relocated rather than
destroyed.

If the long term view is that we should stop developing sites where tree
ferns grow, then all well and good. In the mean time, I see no point in
stopping the relocation of such ferns.

Dave.

But they aren't worthless, are they, because many people in Europe are
prepared to buy them. And while their value won't stop many
developments, in the case of marginal developments, it could be the
deciding point.

Anyway, I think my main concern is that these plants are old - as these
forests are destroyed, they are gone for good. And in perhaps 100 years
time, they will be gone and not easily regrown.

I just wish people would conside a rather longer term view than next
week.

Larry,

As a conservationist myself I have a lot of sympathy for your position. I
also feel rather sorry for the gnarled, prehistoric looking trunks selling
for massive prices in our garden centres. Most of them, I suspect, are
destined for a rapid death.

You are right to emphasise the importance of the habitat - there are many
other species at stake than just tree ferns, and it is not appropriate to
kid ourselves that we are bringing plants into cultivation to 'conserve'
them. The average lifespan of a garden is much less than that of a forest.

However, that said, I really don't see the problem with a strictly
controlled programme of tree fern removal from sites that are earmarked for
development anyway. The problem comes when tree fern 'harvesting' becomes
the reason for the 'development'. I don't know what the situation is in new
Zealand but digging up of plants for horticulture is certainly a problem
elsewhere in the world, either illegally or by abuse of permit systems. How
does the planning system work in NZ - is tree fern removal taken into
account inn the cost-benefit analysis? If it isn't, then the sale of ferns
can't be used to encourage development, at least in the formal process.
Has anybody in NZ tried growing tree ferns on a sustainable basis for
export?

Not all tree ferns in the UK are old trunks stripped from the wild though.
Many are young plants grown from spores. These grow more quickly than you
might think in our rainy isle, are more likely to transplant successfully,
and given a little protection, are more likely to adapt to our winters.

Tristan

I don't kmow the details of the regulations in New Zealand but am
prepared to accept that it is regulated (but are the regulations
properly enforced?).

My concerns are principally:

1. Regulation makes it legal but doesn't make it right and who says the
regulations will ensure the plants are not wiped out. Large scale
destruction of natural resources - regulated or not - is, historically,
the prelude to their demise. For example, the fishing industry in the
North Sea has been regulated for years - and it has been equally obvious
to anybody who thinks about it that for years we have been heading
straight towards where we are now - closure of the whole fishery because
Cod are on the brink of extinction around our coasts.

2. Emotionally, I find it impossible to accept the removal of 150 year
plants from the wild - as do many others. Look at the fuss there is in
this country when developers - completely legally - remove old trees. If
it isn't acceptable in the UK, then it isn't acceptable in New Zealand
or anywhere else.
--
Larry Stoter