A DIFFERING VIEW: Trees too valuable not to control cutting
I must take exception to the
There is already a dearth of trees in Denver. A visit to a New England city or the Pacific Northwest reminds us of how few trees we have. Trees provide an abundance of benefits, including oxygen production and shade, not to mention the aesthetics.
The people who lived in my house before me cut down two large mature elm trees “because they dripped on their cars.” They had a two-car garage. That demonstrated to me the superficiality of attitudes of some people toward trees.
The public has a right to enjoy trees wherever they are planted, and this right can be protected by requiring a permit with stringent restrictions to prevent such destruction.
So, let us encourage the city to pass that legislation to prevent the destruction of these valuable assets.
Alan Culpin is a resident of Denver.
"The public has a right to enjoy trees wherever they are planted"
Excellent, I look forward to hanging my hammock in your backyard!
Posted by Lively Hood on April 12, 2007 11:52 AM"The public has a right to enjoy trees.."
Great, another person decalring that we all have another "right"??? Geez, will it never cease? Where do these people come from? How do their minds work? I am really curious about this. Rights for this, rights for that. These people have no clue what a "right" is.
Posted by Michael on April 12, 2007 11:59 AMWell, Alan and in case you're not aware....the front range of Colorado is semi-arid. This means there isn't as much water available as there is in the Northeast or Northwest parts of the United States. That's also why you will never see the same abundance of trees. You are most likely not from Colorado so.....for some advice from a native Coloradan, I would suggest you find the water for all these trees before you spout off about restricting cutting. I am always amazed when people move to Colorado and they don't comprehend that water is a scarce resource on the front range. If you want more trees....either move to the mountains or to another state.
Posted by Bill Whithers on April 12, 2007 12:07 PMI am a Colorado Native, who loves the history of this state. When I talk with newcomers (flat-landers), one of the first things I tell them is this. EVERY TREE THAT YOU SEE HERE HAS BEEN PLANTED BY SOMEONE.
The only trees that haven't been are the cottonwoods and when the settlers came across THE GREAT AMERICAN DESERT, the way they could find water was by looking for the cottonwoods.
WTG Bill, well said.
Trees are PROPERTY. You, Alan, or anybody else has doesn't have the right to tell me when I can cut, prune, plant, trees. This is nuts. As stated earlier, this was once known as the 'Great American Desert'. The trees here were planted, nurtured. There are more trees here that ever existed. Maybe someone should take a look at history of this land, or maybe just stop and think. But it's easier to emote than think, now isn't it?
Posted by Bill on April 12, 2007 03:10 PMPersonally, I think Denver could also benefit from more trees and despite some of the arguments there are certain trees that will grow in a semi-arid state. One thing that was not mentioned was that trees are a natural pollution filter as well as providing shade, oxygen and beauty to the surrounding area. However, I don't think that restricting property owners with yet another permit allowing them to remove trees from their property is the correct approach. I for one don't care for evergreens and would probably remove one from my property if I had one there. It is a matter of preference not right.
Posted by Susan on April 12, 2007 05:23 PMIf we take away the chainsaws, than only criminals will, oops sorry, I thought this was about gun control.
Posted by Sharon B. on April 14, 2007 04:39 PMThat was great Sharon B.
Your turn to take a bow.
Chas. Thank you ( blushing slightly). Where are Saturdays letters?
[thanks for letting us know. They've been posted now, as of Saturday's date. --editor]