Kauri tree

Forums › Off topic › Kauri tree

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8

2120 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 506

#1256482 11-Mar-2015 17:17

graemeh:
macuser: I don't think resource consent should have been granted to cut down a tree that is native and protected, regardless if it's 'on my property' or not.

It seems un-kiwi to fell a Kauri...

Not really, kiwis cut most of them down a long time ago.

Saying trees should be protected because they are native is as illogical as saying buildings should be protected because they are old.

Oh mate, have you heard of heritage buildings? It will blow your mind!

http://www.heritage.org.nz/

Also it is great the human race doesn't learn from past mistakes!

UncleArthur

197 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 65

#1256484 11-Mar-2015 17:17

I used to have a 100 year old Rimu church in my garage....which somebody demolished to make way for a car park..... it lasted my fireplace 4 years, it was great!

Homer: "Son, you tried and you failed....the lesson is...never try"

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256486 11-Mar-2015 17:18

KiwiNZ: It is time we learnt not to destroy our native flora, these trees are magnificent and we need them. To cut them down is vandalism. I would have thought that climate change would be making it very clear we need to change.

So..if the developer agrees to plant 100 new trees to replace this one, there should be no problem as it is a net gain of 99 trees. Correct?

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1256487 11-Mar-2015 17:18

graemeh:
macuser: I don't think resource consent should have been granted to cut down a tree that is native and protected, regardless if it's 'on my property' or not.

It seems un-kiwi to fell a Kauri...

Not really, kiwis cut most of them down a long time ago.

Saying trees should be protected because they are native is as illogical as saying buildings should be protected because they are old.

So you support the destruction of our heritage

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Jase2985

13732 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6206

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1256490 11-Mar-2015 17:21

macuser: Because there's so much god damn Kauri forest in the way of everything!! Maybe we're better off chopping up all those new motorways that Auckland council always seems to find room for

because its in an area defined as urban by the Auckland city council, and its on private land?

how about you live you day to day and dont use a motorway in Auckland and see how long you can do that for?

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256492 11-Mar-2015 17:23

KiwiNZ:
graemeh:
macuser: I don't think resource consent should have been granted to cut down a tree that is native and protected, regardless if it's 'on my property' or not.

It seems un-kiwi to fell a Kauri...

Not really, kiwis cut most of them down a long time ago.

Saying trees should be protected because they are native is as illogical as saying buildings should be protected because they are old.

So you support the destruction of our heritage

You cannot simply say that everything that is old (and I use the term relatively because no built environment in NZ is old) it is 'heritage' and should be preserved in aspic.

Most old buildings in NZ fall into two categories - wooden sheds not fit for human habitation but nice to look at or hideous utilitarian structures that feature not a jot of artistic design flair.

All of those you can cheerfully flatten.

A very few are worth keeping for reasons of history etc.

Progress requires looking and moving forward, not endlessly looking at the past.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

macuser

2120 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 506

#1256493 11-Mar-2015 17:25

Jase2985:
macuser: Because there's so much god damn Kauri forest in the way of everything!! Maybe we're better off chopping up all those new motorways that Auckland council always seems to find room for

because its in an area defined as urban by the Auckland city council, and its on private land?

how about you live you day to day and dont use a motorway in Auckland and see how long you can do that for?

I do live in Auckland, I walk and use public transport :)

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256495 11-Mar-2015 17:27

KiwiNZ:
graemeh:
macuser: I don't think resource consent should have been granted to cut down a tree that is native and protected, regardless if it's 'on my property' or not.

It seems un-kiwi to fell a Kauri...

Not really, kiwis cut most of them down a long time ago.

Saying trees should be protected because they are native is as illogical as saying buildings should be protected because they are old.

So you support the destruction of our heritage

so how exactly is this tree part of our heritage.

I think people are overreacting without knowing exactly the circumstances here, just have their personal axes to grind.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1256503 11-Mar-2015 17:29

MileHighKiwi:
LennonNZ: As far as I know this is a single small kauri which is among a number of other kauri trees.
It is crowded and pulling this one down will actually improve the growth of other ones in the same area which are a lot bigger.

Yep.

I'm generally opposed to any destruction of native flora but here's an interesting take from Whale Oil...http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2015/03/behind-the-tree-huggers-what-the-media-isnt-telling-you/

Holly mother of god , did anybody else see the size of that dog on the above link. Yup if it was under the tree I doubt anybody would climb up it , hell one bite from it and it could fell the tree itself.

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1630
Inactive user

#1256504 11-Mar-2015 17:30

The eco warriors should just buy the land and be done with it.

It's clear the tree is not 500 years old let alone 300 years old

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1630
Inactive user

#1256512 11-Mar-2015 17:38

Goosey: Both the Kauri tree thing and 1080 poision threats are a nice sideshow to the northland by election and the recent salary increase for MPs and the outrageous salary being paid to a group of well to do citizens whom are charged with finding a new flag.

edit: can forget the TPPA as well.

In other news.....

False flag nutter?

Stay inside to keep away from the chemtrails

Sorry ;)

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

nathan

5695 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1630
Inactive user

#1256514 11-Mar-2015 17:40

macuser: I don't think resource consent should have been granted to cut down a tree that is native and protected, regardless if it's 'on my property' or not.

It seems un-kiwi to fell a Kauri...

Yeah those bloody English that came over here 150 years ago and clear felled Kauri. They weren't kiwis at all

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1256522 11-Mar-2015 17:57

richms: If these people want to keep the tree, then they should show some cash to buy the property and then they can save it all they like. Otherwise GTFO off this guys property and let him enjoy it how he sees fit.

These old trees though are protected, and they are the only old history we have in NZ. These trees will outlive us. I would only agree to it's removal if it was causing a problem for an existing dwelling(eg structural damage) or if it was dying/dead, or if it was dangerous. I would also possibly support it for public works where there was no other option (eg a motorway extension) . But I wouldn't support it's removal for a new private development.

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1256526 11-Mar-2015 18:03

Geektastic:
Presso: Whats everybody think of this Kauri tree drama that is unfolding up north (up north for me).

Find a solution to save the tree or cut it down with the protester in it ??

The latter. It's a tree. There's no shortage of them. One less enviro nutter would, on the other hand, be a benefit.

There is a shortage of hundreds of years old native trees though. We are not talking about fast growing pines that grows to full size in a generation. These old trees take hundreds of years to get to a large size, and they can live up to a thousand years. So they can't just be replaced. Councils do realise this, which is why they prevent their removal without resource consent.

I don't mind the removal of non native trees which are up to 30 years old, and can be replaced within a short period of time. But our forest and old trees are a huge part of NZ, and our tourism industry is based around this.

networkn

Networkn
32866 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15456

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1256529 11-Mar-2015 18:07

UncleArthur:
Goosey: Both the Kauri tree thing and 1080 poision threats are a nice sideshow to the northland by election and the recent salary increase for MPs and the outrageous salary being paid to a group of well to do citizens whom are charged with finding a new flag.

edit: can forget the TPPA as well.

In other news.....

OMG - Now I know why parliament has so many nut jobs in it.... because it is the 'house of representatives'

LOL Meanest thing I've seen written all month! :)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8