Christine O wrote:
There is a man who lives a few kilometres from here who feels so strongly about the tall tree growing opposite his house that when the council came to chop it down he climbed it and refused to come down. ... What do you think?
I admire his passion and actions but I do not believe it is the best option for all
Mr RP places a low value on the possibility of a branch falling and harming a person and great value on the value of the tree in terms of the environment, shade etc. The council places more value on the safety of people passing by than the cutting down of the tree. The council and Mr RP have different values. I can't help being a little cynical about Mr RP's position because whatever happens he is not responsible for any damage the tree may cause.
An extract from the more recent news report: “There have been 20 catastrophic failures of this type of tree, of similar age, in the past five years,” Mr Figg said. “Even an independent arborist’s report (paid for by the tree man or his supporters) contains a series of disclaimers, warns there is no guarantee the specific tree will not shed limbs and makes several recommendations if it were to remain, including the installation of a box bracing system, annual inspections and extensive pruning.”
They both are acting ethically from their own point of view, based upon their values system.
My feeling is that I prefer the council perspective, but then, a large tree branch fell on some campers a few kilometres from here some years ago which resulted in two fatalities.
Perhaps a better solution to this conflict would be for Mr RP to plant more trees in his own backyard? I suspect the council would donate a few trees in order to settle the dispute. His approach seems unnecessarily confrontationalist, but maybe the council is also intractable?