On 5/12/06 00:15, in article , "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
...
snip Why grow it at all, if only for personally selfish reasons? Would
we grow
oaks to act as windbreaks, only to remove them to allow the laurels
planted
inside them to take over? Trees are not animals in the sense of allowing
them 'a few years of freedom'. Many trees live for a very, very much
longer
time than any animal, including the human and IMO, should be planted with
that in mind.


But we do grow most, if not all, things for selfish reasons. Vegetables
don't stand a chance before they get noshed.
Taking your example to extremes we would never remove any shrub,tree or
perennial or even a weed.
We manage our gardens and plots and as such we do interfere with nature.
"Working with nature" -perhaps,maybe,sometimes but usually not.


I suppose I belong to the "plant trees for future generations" school of
thought. And even though it's sometimes necessary, I feel real sadness when
I see a tree being felled. I could never plant a tree telling myself it's
just a temporary arrangement. We're getting some dieback in some of the
older trees in our garden, like the beeches, which is my favourite tree. I
dread the day we're told any of them have to come down and hope most
sincerely I won't be around to see it happen!

--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/