You want those psycho weirdos to take care of the tree? Why? Under duress, no less. I'd rather the opposite - put a restraining order on them from approaching anywhere near the tree. I think the...
You want those psycho weirdos to take care of the tree? Why? Under duress, no less. I'd rather the opposite - put a restraining order on them from approaching anywhere near the tree.
I think the tree and everyone that would prefer for the tree to continue existing would rather it be taken care of by professionals who like the tree. Just fine the accused an appropriate amount of money and be done with it.
And its not like its a hard punishment. Just go there once a month and make sure its in good shape, trim/water it, pick up trash, etc. (I have no idea what goes into taking care of a tree like...
And its not like its a hard punishment. Just go there once a month and make sure its in good shape, trim/water it, pick up trash, etc. (I have no idea what goes into taking care of a tree like this haha)
In this case he'd have to be in a tree costume. Though I suppose he'd have to be allowed some sleep, food and a job... so maybe every weekend during the busiest hours and he'd still have to wear...
In this case he'd have to be in a tree costume.
Though I suppose he'd have to be allowed some sleep, food and a job... so maybe every weekend during the busiest hours and he'd still have to wear the costume all day, wherever he went.
Some places make you pay three times the cost of replacing the tree, which is already very high for an old full grown tree. 20 years of occasional service might be a cakewalk compared to that.
Some places make you pay three times the cost of replacing the tree, which is already very high for an old full grown tree. 20 years of occasional service might be a cakewalk compared to that.
Casual interaction with nature, which can lead to damage, is a deeply important part of the human experience. People, like any other animal, need to be able to go out into their world and break...
Casual interaction with nature, which can lead to damage, is a deeply important part of the human experience. People, like any other animal, need to be able to go out into their world and break things - look at the popularity of random camping, bow hunting, or ATVing. The sad thing is that modern human society has made breaking things so much more vicious to nature than any other animal could ever hope to achieve. We need a better balance between the freedom to experience nature in the visceral way that is the birthright of every organism on the planet and the incredible damage modern society can achieve.
My comment clearly didn't come across very well :) What I wanted to discuss is that "take only pictures, leave only footprints" is, in my view, somewhat too restrictive of a proposition for...
My comment clearly didn't come across very well :)
What I wanted to discuss is that "take only pictures, leave only footprints" is, in my view, somewhat too restrictive of a proposition for human-nature interactions. People should have the ability to push things around, and that sometimes means pushing things to their breaking point. But generally speaking, humans do not individually have the capacity to cause large scale destruction. If the perpetrators had held a knife rather than a chainsaw, the tree would be standing.
But they did have a chainsaw - so given the supply of modern technology, how can we ensure that humans pushing up against nature (in an adventuring manner - which this wasn't, unfortunately) don't cause way more damage than they might have if they didn't have that technology?
As for camping, I'm specifically referring to random camping, where you can essentially take yourself out to the middle of nowhere on public land and camp there - this has been really changed by the advent of the motor vehicle, with previously inaccessible regions now frequented by large groups. Regular camping is a bit of a different matter.
I'm not sure how well this train of thought carries itself, especially given the frankly disgusting actions of the people in the original article. but I'm glad we can discuss it at least.
i do find this an interesting article to post this comment on. Surely there have to be limits, right? Felling an iconic tree, next to a UNESCO World Heritage site, with modern equipment, feels a...
i do find this an interesting article to post this comment on. Surely there have to be limits, right? Felling an iconic tree, next to a UNESCO World Heritage site, with modern equipment, feels a bit much.
That was my intended point, though I clearly could have worded it better :P Basically my thought was, this kid (and the mentioned adults) could have interacted in a casual manner with nature if...
That was my intended point, though I clearly could have worded it better :P
Basically my thought was, this kid (and the mentioned adults) could have interacted in a casual manner with nature if they lived 1000 years ago, because they didn't have access to modern vehicles, chainsaws, etc... If the group were carrying small knives rather than power tools, the possible amount of damage is greatly reduced. I doubt they would have had much success chopping down a tree with a pocket knife.
So now that we have this modern equipment, how do we allow people to go about on these adventures and not incur way more damage to the environment? Not sure I have the answer unfortunately.
I was pretty tired when I wrote that comment though, definitely not my best work haha. Fully agree that there are many limits to how humans can interact with the natural world.
Also of course there is clearly intent to harm in this case which isn't really what I wanted to discuss.
Make the guilty parties care for it for the next 20 years.
You want those psycho weirdos to take care of the tree? Why? Under duress, no less. I'd rather the opposite - put a restraining order on them from approaching anywhere near the tree.
I think the tree and everyone that would prefer for the tree to continue existing would rather it be taken care of by professionals who like the tree. Just fine the accused an appropriate amount of money and be done with it.
Ah yes, 20 years of social service, sounds like an appropriate sentence that fits the crime. /s
For a 200 year old tree that was enjoyed by thousands including future generations?
20 years is a LIGHT sentence.
And its not like its a hard punishment. Just go there once a month and make sure its in good shape, trim/water it, pick up trash, etc. (I have no idea what goes into taking care of a tree like this haha)
What would the punishment be for destroying an ancient public statue? Feel like whatever that is would be about right.
The vandal would would have to stand in the pose of the original statue for 20yrs.
In this case he'd have to be in a tree costume.
Though I suppose he'd have to be allowed some sleep, food and a job... so maybe every weekend during the busiest hours and he'd still have to wear the costume all day, wherever he went.
Some places make you pay three times the cost of replacing the tree, which is already very high for an old full grown tree. 20 years of occasional service might be a cakewalk compared to that.
Casual interaction with nature, which can lead to damage, is a deeply important part of the human experience. People, like any other animal, need to be able to go out into their world and break things - look at the popularity of random camping, bow hunting, or ATVing. The sad thing is that modern human society has made breaking things so much more vicious to nature than any other animal could ever hope to achieve. We need a better balance between the freedom to experience nature in the visceral way that is the birthright of every organism on the planet and the incredible damage modern society can achieve.
My comment clearly didn't come across very well :)
What I wanted to discuss is that "take only pictures, leave only footprints" is, in my view, somewhat too restrictive of a proposition for human-nature interactions. People should have the ability to push things around, and that sometimes means pushing things to their breaking point. But generally speaking, humans do not individually have the capacity to cause large scale destruction. If the perpetrators had held a knife rather than a chainsaw, the tree would be standing.
But they did have a chainsaw - so given the supply of modern technology, how can we ensure that humans pushing up against nature (in an adventuring manner - which this wasn't, unfortunately) don't cause way more damage than they might have if they didn't have that technology?
As for camping, I'm specifically referring to random camping, where you can essentially take yourself out to the middle of nowhere on public land and camp there - this has been really changed by the advent of the motor vehicle, with previously inaccessible regions now frequented by large groups. Regular camping is a bit of a different matter.
I'm not sure how well this train of thought carries itself, especially given the frankly disgusting actions of the people in the original article. but I'm glad we can discuss it at least.
i do find this an interesting article to post this comment on. Surely there have to be limits, right? Felling an iconic tree, next to a UNESCO World Heritage site, with modern equipment, feels a bit much.
That was my intended point, though I clearly could have worded it better :P
Basically my thought was, this kid (and the mentioned adults) could have interacted in a casual manner with nature if they lived 1000 years ago, because they didn't have access to modern vehicles, chainsaws, etc... If the group were carrying small knives rather than power tools, the possible amount of damage is greatly reduced. I doubt they would have had much success chopping down a tree with a pocket knife.
So now that we have this modern equipment, how do we allow people to go about on these adventures and not incur way more damage to the environment? Not sure I have the answer unfortunately.
I was pretty tired when I wrote that comment though, definitely not my best work haha. Fully agree that there are many limits to how humans can interact with the natural world.
Also of course there is clearly intent to harm in this case which isn't really what I wanted to discuss.