Rustling Road trees are being felled right now

[Eccy Beach]

I believe it is the intention of STAG to highlight the scale of the felling by ribboning all the trees that are going to be removed, regardless of the merit for their removal. They are not saying that every tree ribboned should remain and indeed have been very vocal in stating that in some instances trees will need to be removed.

 

Which surely backs up my point, they've moved away from scientific and rational arguments to 'carpet bombing' trees for propaganda purposes?

 

I'm essentially supportive of their arguments, I don't want healthy trees of those which pose no danger or sky-high maintenance costs chopping down, but I find some of their approaches tiresome.

 

They also need to be careful that their valid points aren't lost as more 'radical' protesters enter the fray - spitting at police officers doesn't help anyone.

[Robin-H]

Bit misleading then?

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2017 at 08:28 ----------

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

Why is it misleading? They are drawing attention to every tree that will be removed.

 

It would not be feasible for STAG members to only ribbon tree that they individually felt shouldn't be removed as there would not be a consensus on this. So and so might not feel a particular tree is worthy of retention, but another member might - there is not one hive mind.

[WarPig]

If a mature tree outside my house was felled and replaced with something like a small upright cherry tree, I'd be tempted to swap it myself under cover of darkness to something more visual.

 

Ive grown oak trees from acorns I collected from a historic ancient oak tree, and have recently given the 10yr old saplings to a group responsible for planting up areas of my local park. It will be nice for my kids to see those trees in decades to come and be able to say "My dad grew that tree" etc. Ive still got a few oak saplings left and im looking for suitable locations where I can plant them where they should be safe to grow to maturity.

[Guest makapaka]

Why is it misleading? They are drawing attention to every tree that will be removed.

 

It would not be feasible for STAG members to only ribbon tree that they individually felt shouldn't be removed as there would not be a consensus on this. So and so might not feel a particular tree is worthy of retention, but another member might - there is not one hive mind.

 

See eccy beach post above.

[Robin-H]

See eccy beach post above.

 

That post doesn't explain why you think it is misleading. It would be misleading to ribbon trees that aren't planned for removal to make the fellings seem greater in number. It would also be misleading to ribbon fewer trees to make the fellings seem fewer in number (if, for example, the ribboning was done by a group with a different agenda, such as the council).

 

The only way to ensure that it is not misleading is to simply try and ribbon every tree that is planned to be felled. It is then not up to the individual ribboner to make a value judgement of the tree, they are simply visually highlighting the trees planned for removal.

[Eccy Beach]

That post doesn't explain why you think it is misleading. It would be misleading to ribbon trees that aren't planned for removal to make the fellings seem greater in number. It would also be misleading to ribbon fewer trees to make the fellings seem fewer in number (if, for example, the ribboning was done by a group with a different agenda, such as the council).

 

The only way to ensure that it is not misleading is to simply try and ribbon every tree that is planned to be felled. It is then not up to the individual ribboner to make a value judgement of the tree, they are simply visually highlighting the trees planned for removal.

 

Is it not misleading to tie a ribbon on a tree with posters saying things like 'save this tree' if, as you're saying, STAG don't think that tree should be saved?

[Robin-H]

Is it not misleading to tie a ribbon on a tree with posters saying things like 'save this tree' if, as you're saying, STAG don't think that tree should be saved?

 

I'm saying that 'STAG' isn't one collective on which everything is agreed, or is even discussed. The only thing that connects members of STAG is that they want to minimise the felling of healthy street trees across Sheffield. It is entirely possible that one member of STAG feels a tree should be saved that another member might feel should be removed.

 

There are standardised posters produced by STAG, but these do not say 'save this tree' or 'save me' (at least in the area around me, and the ones I have seen elsewhere). They only mention the fact that many trees in the area are under threat, and are not only placed on threatened trees (which is a logical place to show them) but also windows etc.

 

Whilst some trees may have signs saving 'save this tree' etc (as I am aware trees on Rustling Road did, and I believe trees on Western Road did also) in these high profile cases there was a general consensus with those involved (on the STAG side and independent arboriculturalists) that all ribboned and 'postered' trees were being unnecessarily removed.

[Guest makapaka]

I'm saying that 'STAG' isn't one collective on which everything is agreed, or is even discussed. The only thing that connects members of STAG is that they want to minimise the felling of healthy street trees across Sheffield. It is entirely possible that one member of STAG feels a tree should be saved that another member might feel should be removed.

 

There are standardised posters produced by STAG, but these do not say 'save this tree' or 'save me' (at least in the area around me, and the ones I have seen elsewhere). They only mention the fact that many trees in the area are under threat, and are not only placed on threatened trees (which is a logical place to show them) but also windows etc.

 

Whilst some trees may have signs saving 'save this tree' etc (as I am aware trees on Rustling Road did, and I believe trees on Western Road did also) in these high profile cases there was a general consensus with those involved (on the STAG side and independent arboriculturalists) that all ribboned and 'postered' trees were being unnecessarily removed.

 

Of course! I don't know why I didn't consider all that when driving past loads of trees with ribbons round them.......not misleading at all.

[Robin-H]

Of course! I don't know why I didn't consider all that when driving past loads of trees with ribbons round them.......not misleading at all.

 

Nobody has produced a coherent argument as to why ribboning the trees that are going to be felled is at all misleading.

 

As I have explained, deliberately ribboning a greater number than are due to be felled would be misleading, as would ribboning a lesser number. There is nothing misleading about just highlighting the trees that are going to be removed.

[Guest makapaka]

Nobody has produced a coherent argument as to why ribboning the trees that are going to be felled is at all misleading.

 

As I have explained, deliberately ribboning a greater number than are due to be felled would be misleading, as would ribboning a lesser number. There is nothing misleading about just highlighting the trees that are going to be removed.

 

It is misleading is in the context of an ongoing campaign though isn't there?

 

Ie if a group seeking to campaign against unwarranted tree removal puts a ribbon round a tree it would suggest they are seeking to prevent it.

 

Youre now saying that people are putting ribbons around trees that they potentially accept should be removed.

 

You're inability to acknowledge any flaw in the argument is what's undermining a worthwhile campaign.