Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Condemning moral neutrality; condemning kids who don't like spicy foods | Main | Will the rural renaissance bring a new liberty? »

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

An argument that's for the birds

The Vancouver Park Board, a long-time repository of "watermelons" (green outside, red inside), actually showed some common sense last night by voting to cut down 70 trees at Queen Elizabeth Park in order to restore views of downtown and the North Shore Mountains.

CKNW has a short story on the decision here, but the print item does not include the just-aired quote from one opponent, a quote so wonderfully eco-nuts that I simply have to get it on the record: "The birds are stakeholders, too!"

Posted by Terry O'Neill on July 8, 2008 in Municipal Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An argument that's for the birds:


It looks like Vancouver has finally gone to the birds.

Oh come on, someone had to say it!

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-08 12:14:02 PM

Stakeholders??? That word has always bothered me.
Perhaps the Watermelons can lobby for some wind farms in the area and then the birds will no longer be a problem.

Posted by: atric | 2008-07-08 3:27:10 PM

>"The birds are stakeholders, too!"

Woe unto the birds!
How will they ever find new trees to perch in?

I guess expecting them to fly up and get a "bird's eye view" to new perches would be stereotyping the birds overly much.

Maybe the Vancouver Park Board could locate some new trees for the birds to perch in and using the newly gotten timber, build some exclusive board walks for the birds to walk to their new perches over.

Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-08 3:33:54 PM

Well maybe so but then so are the termites. Such discrimination I cannot stand.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-08 5:15:34 PM

What do expect from soft malcontent lefties who have NEVER had a real problem to deal with?

Posted by: John V | 2008-07-08 8:14:59 PM

Ok, I'm not clear on this one. Are these trees a windfall hazard or is this really just cosmetic cutting. People go to the park to get into a natural setting and there the trees are so big they lose the great view of ... the city. You can't see the city from anywhere else? When you move here, aren't the trees part of the view? If you don't like trees, there are lots of other places where they aren't. Head east. This sounds a bit like the situation when city folk move into the country and bitch about the smell of livestock.

Posted by: Geoff | 2008-07-08 9:36:14 PM

Nothing wrong with Vancouver that a rise in the Ocean level can't cure.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-07-08 11:21:20 PM

Darn! What a pity global warming is a hoax!

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-08 11:36:58 PM

It's cosmetic cutting, Geoff. The trees are blocking the view, so people complained, so someone suggested cutting them down, but people complained, so someone suggested erecting a viewing tower, but people complained, so now we're back to cutting down the trees. Business as usual.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-09 7:41:18 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.