Sacha writes
On 11/6/06 16:07, in article , "K"
wrote:

Sacha writes


IMO, it is indeed immoral to cut down a tree, just so that you don't have to
sweep a drive or clean a car or caravan. I think it immoral to knock down
birds' nests so that your terrace doesn't get messy, too. Perhaps you
don't, so we shall have to differ on those issues.

I've never said anything to suggest that I'd knock down a birds nest for
any reason, so don't suggest that I would. See my reply to your other
post for my stance on trees - I just can't see any logic in a moral
stance that says it's OK to stunt a tree by repeated pruning but not OK
to let it free for a while and then kill it. I'm not suggesting that you
take this stance.

Your post appeared to be in response to my position, which is why I replied
to it. I see no difference between cutting down a tree to keep a car clean
and knocking down birds' nests to keep some stones clean, which is why I
wrote as I did.

Hmm ... I do. I regard birds as more sentient than plants, so I'd
tolerate more hassle from birds than from plants (eg I would trim back a
tree if it was blocking my window, whereas I'd give up using a part of
the garden if it was disturbing a birds nest).

We have seen posts on both matters on urg many times. You
appear determined to put words into my mouth, Kay, at least in regard to
yourself. I have never suggested you would do either

Well, the birds nest comment was in a post responding to mine! Apologies
if I took personally something that was meant generally.

and I know that you
are very interested in working with wildlife. Indeed, your husband's hobby
is the study of earthworms, IIRC.

Not his hobby, he was a professional oligochaetologist before his
retirement.

In this particular instance the tree has reached full maturity and was
planted for that purpose, judging by the photos; a hedge is planted to be a
hedge

Ah, but it's still often made of trees whose natural state is to be
anything form 20 to 60 feet high.

and provides both screening for people and shelter for birds and
nobody was discussing killing one, having let it grow to the desired height.

That I think, illustrates the other point that was made about working with
nature versus 'taming' nature.

From the tree's pov, being chopped off at hedge height must feel a lot
more like being tamed than someone working with it.

I suppose we could all put up brick walls or
larchap fences, or chicken wire but it doesn't exactly help wildlife if we
do.

I suppose it depends what is place of the hedge. The planting on each
side of the fence will support its own wildlife, crevices in the wall
will give hibernation places for all sorts of creatures.

Which is where 'working' with nature comes in and not 'taming' nature.
The breeze block would be quicker, easier and maintenance free.

Who was suggesting breezebock? ;-)
And deadly
boring.
agreed

The OP was discussing chopping down a tree to keep a drive and vehicle clean
- something that is totally unnecessary. People who plant hedges need
hedges AND the hedges fulfil some of the needs of wildlife. A chopped down
tree does nothing for wildlife unless it's allowed to lie there and become a
'nurse' tree and somehow, I don't feel that was the intention.

A chopped down tree will allow more light in for other plants and bring
in more other creatures - though this is the case if you chopped down a
tree to make room for planting rather than chopped down a tree to make
room for a clean caravan.

As you can see, I just have real difficulty in seeing a big moral
difference between killing a tree and permanently altering its growth
habit. That said, I am probably on the other side of the moral fence
from you - not only do I have a hawthorn hedge (thus stunting the
individual trees to 6ft and preventing them flowering and setting fruit)
but I also have some bonsais, and I have even cut down two trees ( a
laurel and a bay) for the trivial reasons of letting more light to the
non-native plants near them.



--
Kay

On 12/6/06 12:31, in article , "K"
wrote:

snip
As you can see, I just have real difficulty in seeing a big moral
difference between killing a tree and permanently altering its growth
habit. That said, I am probably on the other side of the moral fence
from you - not only do I have a hawthorn hedge (thus stunting the
individual trees to 6ft and preventing them flowering and setting fruit)
but I also have some bonsais, and I have even cut down two trees ( a
laurel and a bay) for the trivial reasons of letting more light to the
non-native plants near them.


I'd call letting in light part of the working with nature thing. I'd call
chopping down trees for fear of mess, vandalism.

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)

Sacha writes
On 12/6/06 12:31, in article , "K"
wrote:

snip
As you can see, I just have real difficulty in seeing a big moral
difference between killing a tree and permanently altering its growth
habit. That said, I am probably on the other side of the moral fence
from you - not only do I have a hawthorn hedge (thus stunting the
individual trees to 6ft and preventing them flowering and setting fruit)
but I also have some bonsais, and I have even cut down two trees ( a
laurel and a bay) for the trivial reasons of letting more light to the
non-native plants near them.


I'd call letting in light part of the working with nature thing. I'd call
chopping down trees for fear of mess, vandalism.

OK - I can see the logic in your distinction. I suspect there are some
difficult boundaries ("I'm going to cut down this sycamore and plant
some camellias instead") but all the good questions have difficult
shades of grey.
--
Kay

On 12/6/06 17:27, in article , "K"
wrote:

Sacha writes
On 12/6/06 12:31, in article , "K"
wrote:

snip
As you can see, I just have real difficulty in seeing a big moral
difference between killing a tree and permanently altering its growth
habit. That said, I am probably on the other side of the moral fence
from you - not only do I have a hawthorn hedge (thus stunting the
individual trees to 6ft and preventing them flowering and setting fruit)
but I also have some bonsais, and I have even cut down two trees ( a
laurel and a bay) for the trivial reasons of letting more light to the
non-native plants near them.


I'd call letting in light part of the working with nature thing. I'd call
chopping down trees for fear of mess, vandalism.

OK - I can see the logic in your distinction. I suspect there are some
difficult boundaries ("I'm going to cut down this sycamore and plant
some camellias instead") but all the good questions have difficult
shades of grey.

Oh certainly. That¹s gardening!

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)