RE: "Group gathers in Jacques Park to protest trees being cut down", April 25.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
I have some sympathy with the residents who are resisting the removal of some well-loved mature trees in Jacques Park, after council removed so many mature trees and birdlife from areas near my home in Kelso two years ago.
The same justification was used by council then - that is, a distinction between native and non-native species.
Worse still, in this instance, mature, beautiful poplars and willow trees are considered to be weeds.
These virtually racist distinctions, which have bemused me for years, appear to have been brought in by arboriculturist purists, who simply do not like any introduced species in the Australian landscape.
A landscape which includes poplars and willows, as planted by many of our early pioneer farmers, is jarring to these people, who, unfortunately, have had the influence to convert this opinion to incorporate legislation to agree with them.
Consequently. councils follow this conception with the utmost vigour, and take every opportunity to eradicate these two species in particular.
Sure they are not native, however, neither are elms, ashes, flame trees and oaks, which make Bathurst and other towns, such as Orange and Bright, so attractive at this time of the year.
And who would consider removing all jacaranda trees after seeing the effect of these trees in Sydney and Grafton in the spring?
Poplars and willows, in particular, are singled out as affecting watercourses with spreading roots and suckers.
However, in my opinion, the same people and organisations, including the legislators, who take that as a reason to remove them, are out of synch with both the knowledge which existed in pioneer Australia times and modern reassessment of land restoration techniques in Australia and other countries.
The latest research in Australia to improve soil moisture conditions on agricultural lands advocates planting willow trees near creek beds. The logic behind this is that the roots slow down the water flow and this allows time for more moisture to enter the soils adjacent to the creeks, improving the soil moisture profile.
In a land where rain is scarce, a fast flowing creek, which allows creeks to drain quickly and dry up, needs to be slowed down. This, obviously, is common sense.
The farmers of pioneer days certainly knew what they were doing planting these willows and poplars.
In regard to further the defence of poplar trees, apart from their obvious regal appeal, it is a well-known scientific fact that poplars are, by far, the most efficient tree in existence in regard to absorbing carbon, thereby providing assistance in combating global warming and climate change.
In the past 21 years, 1.5 billion poplar trees were planted in China alone.
Rather than a biosecurity risk, as propagated by council and others, the opposite appears to be the case.
In my opinion, our council and legislators, in general, need to reassess this bizarre attitude of racial discrimination against introduced tree species.
They should consider that the lost or ignored knowledge is a good reason to go back to the future and stop this removal practice based on very shaky grounds, and incorrect justification, which affects the wellbeing of residents and the environment generally.
