Why is Saanich trying to force people to retain old trees that endanger people, and young trees growing in the wrong place?
Why are mature trees considered intrinsically better than grass, gardens and shrubs (which Saanich has praised for providing shelter and food for small birds and animals)?
How is it possible to measure forest canopy coverage to within a few per cent, to make Saanich’s alarmist projection of trend?
The ‘canopy’ push comes from the council that spends its time worrying about the colour of paint on a private building instead of policing.
Why the negative view of people when evidence is all around that people plant and nurture vegetation on their land?
Why subject people to the hazard of old trees falling on houses and root damage to foundations? That’s not good behaviour for humans.
Keith Sketchley
Saanich