On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:40:58 GMT, (Babberney)
wrote:

In today's Statesman, an article by Mary Ann Roser profiles two guys
who are trying to eradicate this tree from Austin and the surrounding
area. Since the article is about them, I don't really mind her
quoting the guys as they spout myths and misconceptions about the
plant, but I was disappointed to see no mention of the true story in a
balanced treatment of the topic.

Well, now the editorial page endorses the description of this tree as
a water-wasting invasive non-native (they stopped short of agreeing
that we should kill 'em all and put people first over "dumb birds,"
but one gets the impression that they wouldn't really mind much if it
happened). And they are apparently not interested in printing my
letter that contradicts these assertions. *Am* I being duped by a
lone-voice crackpot, or are they just that miserable during "cedar
fever" season?

I thought I'd seen pretty conclusive evidence from more than one
source that the charges against this tree were trumped up and false,
but I was also pretty sure the editors would fall over themselves
correcting the errors when shown the light by a certified arborist.
Maybe I just didn't edit my letter very well--I definitely don't do my
best writing when worked into a tizzy over something.

k
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www2.champaign.isa-arbor.com/.../consumer.html