This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/dont-call-sheffield-tree-campaigners-fanatics
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Don’t call Sheffield tree campaigners fanatics | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Tree campaign groups across Sheffield have been at pains to garner expert inputs to substantiate their very clear arguments against the Sheffield chainsaw massacre (Letters, 29 November). The Woodland Trust is a longstanding critic of the Sheffield “Streets Ahead” programme and its epic and disastrous plans for street tree “management”. Equally, the Sheffield Wildlife Trust has not been shy about its deep reservations. More recently, the Arboricultural Association has felt compelled to take a position. It is insulting to condemn them as “fanatics”. | Tree campaign groups across Sheffield have been at pains to garner expert inputs to substantiate their very clear arguments against the Sheffield chainsaw massacre (Letters, 29 November). The Woodland Trust is a longstanding critic of the Sheffield “Streets Ahead” programme and its epic and disastrous plans for street tree “management”. Equally, the Sheffield Wildlife Trust has not been shy about its deep reservations. More recently, the Arboricultural Association has felt compelled to take a position. It is insulting to condemn them as “fanatics”. |
| Campaigners do not advocate saving every tree and have a clear position on the removal of the dead and the dangerous. Yet we live in a post-truth, post-factual world. Perhaps then we should be unsurprised when finding some rot and a little deadwood are being cast in the way of constructive dialogue. | Campaigners do not advocate saving every tree and have a clear position on the removal of the dead and the dangerous. Yet we live in a post-truth, post-factual world. Perhaps then we should be unsurprised when finding some rot and a little deadwood are being cast in the way of constructive dialogue. |
| I am sure anyone wishing to interrogate the facts will be welcome at next week’s lecture by Prof Ian Rotherham, details of which can be found at https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.comRichard WardNether Edge, Sheffield | I am sure anyone wishing to interrogate the facts will be welcome at next week’s lecture by Prof Ian Rotherham, details of which can be found at https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.comRichard WardNether Edge, Sheffield |
| • It is a pity that your photographs did not make clear that there is an enormous wooded park two metres from the felled tree. It not only has ample space for the planting of replacement trees but is part of a near unbroken chain of woodland areas that reaches up to the high moors bordering this part of the city. One thing this bubble in the city is not short of is trees. | • It is a pity that your photographs did not make clear that there is an enormous wooded park two metres from the felled tree. It not only has ample space for the planting of replacement trees but is part of a near unbroken chain of woodland areas that reaches up to the high moors bordering this part of the city. One thing this bubble in the city is not short of is trees. |
| But criticising private contractor Amey for attempting to reduce its costs is like telling lions it is wrong to eat zebras. Privatisation is a conscious and deliberate mechanism for syphoning off cash from local councils and the NHS at the expense of badly needed services. Malcolm KestertonSheffield | But criticising private contractor Amey for attempting to reduce its costs is like telling lions it is wrong to eat zebras. Privatisation is a conscious and deliberate mechanism for syphoning off cash from local councils and the NHS at the expense of badly needed services. Malcolm KestertonSheffield |
| • Nobody within the campaign would remotely suggest that all trees be retained. Campaigners, whatever their degree of involvement, recognise that some trees need to go, and had Michael Miller taken the trouble to look on any of the social media sites associated with the campaign he would know this. Healthy mature trees, condemned because of a displaced kerbstone or some similarly trivial disruption, can and should be maintained, within the terms of the contract, at no extra expense to the council. If campaigners could force the council’s hand, it would be to make it insist that the contractor do this, rather than washing its hands and turning a blind eye. | • Nobody within the campaign would remotely suggest that all trees be retained. Campaigners, whatever their degree of involvement, recognise that some trees need to go, and had Michael Miller taken the trouble to look on any of the social media sites associated with the campaign he would know this. Healthy mature trees, condemned because of a displaced kerbstone or some similarly trivial disruption, can and should be maintained, within the terms of the contract, at no extra expense to the council. If campaigners could force the council’s hand, it would be to make it insist that the contractor do this, rather than washing its hands and turning a blind eye. |
| Richard Thackeray, however, is quite right. The council’s predicament is a difficult one, thanks to the policies of successive national governments and PFI contracts. This needs to be opposed for sure, but in the meantime approximately 4,000 mature healthy trees (not the “selected few” mentioned by Mr Miller) have been destroyed in Sheffield, including in poorer neighbourhoods which can ill afford to lose their splash of green. More than a thousand more are at immediate risk. They cannot be replaced, only substituted; once they are gone they are gone. A young tree does not provide the same benefits. Therefore I am fighting for the trees. Once they are safe, I will turn my attention to the political climate that allowed this to happen.Helen McIlroySheffield | Richard Thackeray, however, is quite right. The council’s predicament is a difficult one, thanks to the policies of successive national governments and PFI contracts. This needs to be opposed for sure, but in the meantime approximately 4,000 mature healthy trees (not the “selected few” mentioned by Mr Miller) have been destroyed in Sheffield, including in poorer neighbourhoods which can ill afford to lose their splash of green. More than a thousand more are at immediate risk. They cannot be replaced, only substituted; once they are gone they are gone. A young tree does not provide the same benefits. Therefore I am fighting for the trees. Once they are safe, I will turn my attention to the political climate that allowed this to happen.Helen McIlroySheffield |
| • Street trees are the zenith of our connection with our planet. They stand as exemplars of a sustainable life for us all, even in the most human-influenced environments on the planet. Sheffield, given its importance in the industrial revolution, should recognise this more than most cities. Instead, Sheffield council has decided on a course that sets the very worst precedent for us all, everywhere. Pip HowardSilvicultural surveyor Stoke Gabriel, Devon | • Street trees are the zenith of our connection with our planet. They stand as exemplars of a sustainable life for us all, even in the most human-influenced environments on the planet. Sheffield, given its importance in the industrial revolution, should recognise this more than most cities. Instead, Sheffield council has decided on a course that sets the very worst precedent for us all, everywhere. Pip HowardSilvicultural surveyor Stoke Gabriel, Devon |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |