Sacha writes
On 4/12/06 18:35, in article , "K"
wrote:
"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" writes
I am probably the odd one out but I see nothing wrong with planting a
tree you like and accepting that it will have to be removed long before
maturity. There are plenty of wonderful examples of Araucaria around
here which will eventually have to go. Even the most modest British
trees are probably unsuitable for the average garden but they do enjoy
a 20/30 year life before the chop. Must go now -I need to check the
Sequoia:-)
No, you're not. I've argued this line on urg before.
I don't see it's much different from growing hedges - better, perhaps,
to let a tree have a few years of freedom, than to keep it 'cooped up'
at 6ft high for ever ;-)
Why grow it at all, if only for personally selfish reasons?
Why else are any plants grown that aren't being grown for food or
utility? Or do you mean that we grow our gardens to create a thing of
beauty for others to enjoy? If so, why not grow a tree for the same
reason, even if it has to be removed after 20 years or so when it
outgrows its space?
Would we grow
oaks to act as windbreaks, only to remove them to allow the laurels planted
inside them to take over?
Of course not, but for purely practical reasons - the requirements of a
nurse tree are that it is a) tougher b) grows more rapidly in the early
stages than the thing it is nursing - neither of these apply to oaks as
compared to laurels
Trees are not animals in the sense of allowing
them 'a few years of freedom'.
Precisely. Which is why I find it hard to get worked up about planting
trees to 'selfish' reasons. Is it possible to be selfish if the only ill
effects of your 'selfishness' are on a non-sentient being?
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.
IMO, too, but from a different perspective.
--
Kay