This recent trend of people vandalizing historic sites is very troubling. Do people have nothing better to do anymore? A 300-year-old tree or a coliseum isn't something you can just easily replace...
This recent trend of people vandalizing historic sites is very troubling. Do people have nothing better to do anymore? A 300-year-old tree or a coliseum isn't something you can just easily replace with another.
World's more connected and we've made a shock economy based on "look at me!" behavior. Even if you're not someone profiting from it, we have entire generations now being raised on it thinking it's...
World's more connected and we've made a shock economy based on "look at me!" behavior. Even if you're not someone profiting from it, we have entire generations now being raised on it thinking it's acceptable.
I know every generation swears the next one is a problem, so maybe some % of this is just "same stupid behavior but now with tech making it easier to cause problems", but I would not be remotely surprised if this is on social media somewhere.
Relevant historical anecdote about clout-chasers destroying historic sites for attention: "Herostratus was a 4th-century BC Greek, accused of seeking notoriety as an arsonist by destroying the...
Relevant historical anecdote about clout-chasers destroying historic sites for attention:
Well, Herostratus was also tortured and executed, which one can also imagine was a bit of a deterrent to this sort of behavior. This kid will get what, a slap on the wrist?
Well, Herostratus was also tortured and executed, which one can also imagine was a bit of a deterrent to this sort of behavior.
Rather than deter, the lack of publicity can prevent inspiring copycats as one of the main motivations is notoriety. That's why so many people push for media to not say the names of culprits in...
Rather than deter, the lack of publicity can prevent inspiring copycats as one of the main motivations is notoriety. That's why so many people push for media to not say the names of culprits in mass shootings.
This is what I was thinking about while reading the article. Humans with undeveloped or underdeveloped brains have done moronic shit for the duration of our existence. The only difference is that...
This is what I was thinking about while reading the article. Humans with undeveloped or underdeveloped brains have done moronic shit for the duration of our existence. The only difference is that little vandal Billy doesn't just spread his bad ideas to the kids that live nearby, with little reach to influence the world. Billy can post his ideas on the internet and millions of other kids, who also have undeveloped brains, can bandwagon onto the idea of the week.
You have to also consider the other side of the coin, which is maybe this happens exactly as often as it ever did and we just hear about it more often because of the internet.
You have to also consider the other side of the coin, which is maybe this happens exactly as often as it ever did and we just hear about it more often because of the internet.
I think it is happening more, mainly because the internet provides a lot more opportunity for exposure. That, and people can travel more than ever before. There have always been people with this...
I think it is happening more, mainly because the internet provides a lot more opportunity for exposure. That, and people can travel more than ever before. There have always been people with this sort of urge for notoriety, it's just easier than ever for someone to visit a famous landmark and share photos or videos of them defacing it.
I don't see that as a likely possibility, considering the explosion in our population at the same time that humans also became interconnected across the globe. But that's not to say it's rampant...
I don't see that as a likely possibility, considering the explosion in our population at the same time that humans also became interconnected across the globe. But that's not to say it's rampant or anything alarmist. Just that it seems impossible for kids to be on the internet and not be impacted by algorithmic content, we know how kids brains work and that's part of the problem we're facing. Companies use the information we know about how a child's mind works and they intentionally exploit it for profit, individuals do it more unintentionally.
But I will concede that it is possible that it's not happening more, like you point out.
I'm sure that social media attention is part of it, but I think it may also be sort of the reverse: our hyper-connected digital world means that we hear about more of it. Some percentage of people...
I'm sure that social media attention is part of it, but I think it may also be sort of the reverse: our hyper-connected digital world means that we hear about more of it.
Some percentage of people have always gotten a high from the power of being able to damage or subvert cherished objects, traditions or beliefs. To a limited degree I think it's healthy. Certainly it's a normal part of adolescence.
It's a combination of exporing autonomy and the discovery that we can actually alter the world (when previously we lived entirely at the effect of it). That and usually mental health challenges when it goes to extremes.
I doubt there has been a dramatic increase in destructive behavior, indeed statistically it has decreased quite a lot. Instead there are just more people, and easier access to information.
I feel like I have to make it clear that I'm not defending what this kid did. I'm not offering myself as a stand in target for the understandable outrage something like this sparks.
It was obviously wrong, and sad. And also we're talking about a child. That doesn't excuse the behavior, but it should change how adults parse it.
I wonder what would vandals like these say if you came to their house and burned it down or broken their car's windows etc. They would get mad, yet they don't see their own actions as such.
I wonder what would vandals like these say if you came to their house and burned it down or broken their car's windows etc. They would get mad, yet they don't see their own actions as such.
Yeah, like I just don't get it. It was a popular historic landmark, what point was there in cutting it down? It's not like it was blocking someone's scenic view or something.
Yeah, like I just don't get it. It was a popular historic landmark, what point was there in cutting it down? It's not like it was blocking someone's scenic view or something.
I feel like this has always been an issue, though not necessarily in the vein of "tourists seeking attention". People tear down buildings to build new ones, people cut down forests to make new...
I feel like this has always been an issue, though not necessarily in the vein of "tourists seeking attention". People tear down buildings to build new ones, people cut down forests to make new settlements, destroy religious sites because they're "sacrilegious" to their own faith, etc. And of course, there have always been idiots who do it for no real reason other than bragging rights. It's only relatively recently we started to care about preserving historic sites and landmarks on such a large scale.
That said, I do think social media has exacerbated it by providing exposure on a wider scale, so the "bragging rights" crowd has much more opportunity and motivation than before.
Of course it's always been an issue in some form, but now it seems to be an everyday thing. People vandalizing or outright destroying historic fixtures for seemingly no reason or just for some...
Of course it's always been an issue in some form, but now it seems to be an everyday thing. People vandalizing or outright destroying historic fixtures for seemingly no reason or just for some Instagram/TikTok exposure. I don't see the point in bragging rights for something that will likely send you to jail or at the very least ensure that bankruptcy is in your future.
Reminds me of a similar incident in my hometown a few years back. There was a famous magic tree up the mountains that marked a spot on the road where, if you leave your car in neutral, it will...
Reminds me of a similar incident in my hometown a few years back. There was a famous magic tree up the mountains that marked a spot on the road where, if you leave your car in neutral, it will seemingly roll uphill. Local people would hang little charms from the branches "for the fairies", a tradition surviving from pagan times. Some little bastard just cut it down one day, reasons unknown. Don't think they ever even caught who did it.
Um, was there another option? The young man was wildly swinging his chainsaw about in the dark and accidentally cut down a historic tree? Anyway, the senselessness of this crime is beyond my...
Police said they believed the felling had been a deliberate act of vandalism.
Um, was there another option? The young man was wildly swinging his chainsaw about in the dark and accidentally cut down a historic tree?
Anyway, the senselessness of this crime is beyond my comprehension. When they do find the perpetrator, the punishment should fit the crime - make the vandal plant a large new sycamore tree beside the old, and carry out a jug of water by hand to water it every day for five years so they know it will survive.
I read that as the CYA statement. Same as how they always lead with "such and such allegedly committed X crime" when there's crystal clear video of the perpetrator committing said crime, looking...
I read that as the CYA statement. Same as how they always lead with "such and such allegedly committed X crime" when there's crystal clear video of the perpetrator committing said crime, looking directly at the camera, while holding up two forms of photo ID and the current day's newspaper. Innocent until proven guilty.
Police are probably referring to a specific crime of Vandalism, which may or may not be what they charge him with once all the facts are in. Image a theft where police say it was definitely a...
Police are probably referring to a specific crime of Vandalism, which may or may not be what they charge him with once all the facts are in. Image a theft where police say it was definitely a deliberate act of burglary, but then they find some surveillance footage showing the perpetrator holding a knife while stealing items so it's escalated to robbery instead. It could be Vandalism is a minor charge versus something like destruction of a cultural heritage site instead (not a lawyer, not from the UK, etc.).
Just thinking for fun, but I like the idea of mandating they go tree planting (it's an actual, back-breaking job, and there are companies that operate in the UK) ... as volunteer work for a...
Just thinking for fun, but I like the idea of mandating they go tree planting (it's an actual, back-breaking job, and there are companies that operate in the UK) ... as volunteer work for a summer.
Though, your idea of caring for a tree over the course of years feels like it has real potential of a lesson about long-term impacts.
These types of vandalism stories are so difficult for me to wrap my head around. A moral guideline I often find myself personally returning to is the idea that I can't unbreak something I've...
These types of vandalism stories are so difficult for me to wrap my head around.
A moral guideline I often find myself personally returning to is the idea that I can't unbreak something I've broken. I apply this idea to intangibles like relationships, but also quite literally to things. Of course, I recognize life is a constant state of change, and of course many things can be mended. But still, I find it helps to remind me to think about the consequences my actions may have (e.g., don't take for granted the people in my life; try to limit my contribution to throw-away culture), their permanence, and whether the outcomes are something I'm OK with.
I'm not saying this because I assume everyone is or should be like me. Rather, expressing why I find these stories so sad. Maybe, to eji1700's point, the people who choose to vandalize and destroy stuff are doing so weighing the personal 'clout' they (may) gain to outweigh the wider consequences. Maybe they just don't think about this at all. Are these types of actions so normalized that some people see it as no different than, say, writing your name in wet sidewalk cement? (A comparison that came to mind because, because as a brilliant youth, I may or may not have embedded my name into an ugly pubic sidewalk when the opportunity arose.)
Trying to figure out a motive behind this is rather mind-boggling. Some destruction of historic artifacts/sites involves an ideological motive, but if this was more just a random act of...
Trying to figure out a motive behind this is rather mind-boggling. Some destruction of historic artifacts/sites involves an ideological motive, but if this was more just a random act of destruction, it's still curious why such a site was chosen and why the destruction was so pre-meditated that it's being called "skillfully done"
Are we at a societal level now where this is a new version of some kind of internet-fueled destructive behavior (swatting and other similar things also come to mind).
Edit: I think Eji1700's comment maybe answers my question
Well, they caught someone, so if they confess that’d be the answer. But my first guess would be anti-tourism. The tree is very famous, particularly for photographers - you can find a practically...
Well, they caught someone, so if they confess that’d be the answer. But my first guess would be anti-tourism. The tree is very famous, particularly for photographers - you can find a practically infinite number of shots on Instagram. They may feel ire for the tourists, and either just as a fuck you or a deterrent for future tourists, cut down the tree.
Or just revenge for some local actual or perceived wrong. Not that I condone it in the least, but if I was trying to get back at the local governance and had run out of options, then this would be...
Or just revenge for some local actual or perceived wrong. Not that I condone it in the least, but if I was trying to get back at the local governance and had run out of options, then this would be an effective way of "hurting them like they hurt me or mine."
Again, not advocating, just tossing out a possible motive.
Could be as simple as thinking "no one cares about me, but they love and care for a tree, so I'll destroy the thing they care about because I'm mad that no one cares about me. "
Could be as simple as thinking "no one cares about me, but they love and care for a tree, so I'll destroy the thing they care about because I'm mad that no one cares about me. "
Couldn't have cared too much if they didn't even try to save it. I'm serious, set it back on the stump with long chunks of wood or metal in the hardwood to keep it together (cover everything with...
Couldn't have cared too much if they didn't even try to save it.
I'm serious, set it back on the stump with long chunks of wood or metal in the hardwood to keep it together (cover everything with anti-fungal to prevent rot) then graph the heck out of it using bridge graphs. With any luck it'll restore the flow before the upper part dies. Might need to prop it up until it grows back together if it's too windy.
You can also graph stems to the edges of the stump to guarantee it regrows and there are tons of artistic things you can do with such graphs. Letting it naturally regrow is not the brightest idea. You could artistically shape it into a beautiful tree and it'd still be the same living tree.
Do you mean graft? If you are indeed talking about grafting, I just don't see how this could possibly work here. Bridge grafting is used on trees that have only been partially girdled (so the tree...
Do you mean graft?
If you are indeed talking about grafting, I just don't see how this could possibly work here. Bridge grafting is used on trees that have only been partially girdled (so the tree is still standing and there is still some intact phloem feeding the upper portion of the tree) to help the tree close the wound faster. Maybe it would also work for a very small tree (like a sapling) that has been fully severed, although it would be very fiddly and kind of pointless.
But I just don't see how such a tall, thick tree could survive anywhere long enough for the grafts to take. Large trees transpire an enormous amount of water, particularly during the growing season. There is a reason that grafting is typically performed in the winter and uses pencil-thin one-year-old wood; it gives the tissue a chance to knit together before the scion dehydrates.
Yup, graft, I can't spell. :) That makes sense. I've just never heard of a reason against doing it for bigger trees before now and I know it can be done for fruit trees with mixed results, though...
Yup, graft, I can't spell. :)
That makes sense. I've just never heard of a reason against doing it for bigger trees before now and I know it can be done for fruit trees with mixed results, though they are small enough to wrap your hand around.
the tree was in a UK National Park. I imagine they would be able to call up some of the best arborists in the entire country, the moment they noticed the tree had been cut down. if those arborists...
the tree was in a UK National Park. I imagine they would be able to call up some of the best arborists in the entire country, the moment they noticed the tree had been cut down. if those arborists said it was feasible to save the tree, it seems like they would have done it.
do you have some background or expertise in tree care that you didn't mention in your comment? it seems kind of weird to second-guess the experts on this otherwise.
Never claimed to be an expert, but I have done some simple grafts and like anyone with access to the vast amounts of knowledge on the web I can look them up to know more. Though apparently...
Never claimed to be an expert, but I have done some simple grafts and like anyone with access to the vast amounts of knowledge on the web I can look them up to know more. Though apparently grafting a large tree back together isn't actually possible as RoyalHenOil mentioned. It is still possible to graft cuttings to the original stump though.
Grafting wasn't mentioned in the article, which one would assume it would be if they considered it. It said they collected seeds and cuttings which sounded like they intend to just replant it. From another article I just ran across recently, the cuttings were for grafting which is good to hear.
Is that even possible? The part that's been cut off would be effectively "dead". My attempts to search if it's possible so far bring up only scenarios like branches or vertical damage, I can't...
Is that even possible? The part that's been cut off would be effectively "dead". My attempts to search if it's possible so far bring up only scenarios like branches or vertical damage, I can't find anything about rearranging trees to stumps.
If it is possible, it would probably have to be done within hours. It's a pretty tall tree, so I think it would definitely need support. The time needed to gather the supplies, get equipment to hoist the tree into place, etc. might take too long for it to be feasible, especially since a few hours likely already passed before discovery. The "deadline" may have passed before it was even discovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycamore_Gap_Tree While it is likely the boy wanted attention, I think it is equally likely that the boy had other motivations. Perhaps he felt that the tree did not...
popular tourist attraction, the tree was described as one of the most photographed in the country and the location may be the most photographed point in all of Northumberland National Park
While it is likely the boy wanted attention, I think it is equally likely that the boy had other motivations. Perhaps he felt that the tree did not deserve the attention that it got. Perhaps he was tired of seeing tourists all along the countryside. Perhaps he didn't like the movie Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. We just don't know.
A truly terrible loss. Hopefully the locals are able to come up with a fitting tribute, and the tree regrows in some form as they can after coppicing. If anyone wanted to read more, I thought this...
A truly terrible loss. Hopefully the locals are able to come up with a fitting tribute, and the tree regrows in some form as they can after coppicing. If anyone wanted to read more, I thought this article from the BBC had some impactful quotes from local residents and visitors:
A few quotes
Anna Charlton, who runs a tourist business within Northumberland National Park, described the tree as "an emblem".
"I'm weeping. This isn't just vandalism, it's an attack on nature," she said.
[...]
Visiting the site, North of Tyne mayor Jamie Driscoll said he could not express his anger.
"People have had their ashes scattered there. People have proposed there. I've picnicked there with my wife and kids. It's part of our collective soul," he said.
[...]
The Woodland Trust conservation charity, which organises the Tree of the Year competition, called for "better legal protection" for "living legends".
The organisation's Jack Taylor said: "This is incredibly devastating news. A tree of this age with its gnarly parts has built up a complex ecosystem over many many years and is a truly irreplaceable loss.
Edit: It sounds like I was right on the money about coppicing. It will still take 100+ years for the tree to get anywhere near the size it used to be, though. But, as the professor quoted at the end of this article notes, maybe this is a chance to grow a whole forest in its place.
Well, I've thought about this story for a full 24 hours, and I initially cared about this tree, because vandals are big jerks; although, ultimately, I'm reminded that the British Empire subjugated...
Well, I've thought about this story for a full 24 hours, and I initially cared about this tree, because vandals are big jerks; although, ultimately, I'm reminded that the British Empire subjugated thousands of native children to residential schools. On the eve before our national truth and reconciliation day, screw that tree in particular, bring people's families back. If a tree falls, people care, I get it. We can care about two things at once, I get it, but this grammable, historic tree isn't something I'm going to keep worrying about.
This recent trend of people vandalizing historic sites is very troubling. Do people have nothing better to do anymore? A 300-year-old tree or a coliseum isn't something you can just easily replace with another.
World's more connected and we've made a shock economy based on "look at me!" behavior. Even if you're not someone profiting from it, we have entire generations now being raised on it thinking it's acceptable.
I know every generation swears the next one is a problem, so maybe some % of this is just "same stupid behavior but now with tech making it easier to cause problems", but I would not be remotely surprised if this is on social media somewhere.
Relevant historical anecdote about clout-chasers destroying historic sites for attention:
"Herostratus was a 4th-century BC Greek, accused of seeking notoriety as an arsonist by destroying the second Temple of Artemis in Ephesus. The conclusion prompted the creation of a damnatio memoriae law forbidding anyone to mention his name, orally or in writing. The law was ultimately ineffective, as evidenced by surviving accounts of his crime."
Well, Herostratus was also tortured and executed, which one can also imagine was a bit of a deterrent to this sort of behavior.
This kid will get what, a slap on the wrist?
How could it deter anyone, if it was against the law to talk about it? :P
Rather than deter, the lack of publicity can prevent inspiring copycats as one of the main motivations is notoriety. That's why so many people push for media to not say the names of culprits in mass shootings.
We should bring back torture
Uh, no? I’m going to assume you’re not serious.
I'm sorry that wasn't more clear haha
No worries. Poe’s Law and all that. Thanks for clarifying.
This is what I was thinking about while reading the article. Humans with undeveloped or underdeveloped brains have done moronic shit for the duration of our existence. The only difference is that little vandal Billy doesn't just spread his bad ideas to the kids that live nearby, with little reach to influence the world. Billy can post his ideas on the internet and millions of other kids, who also have undeveloped brains, can bandwagon onto the idea of the week.
You have to also consider the other side of the coin, which is maybe this happens exactly as often as it ever did and we just hear about it more often because of the internet.
I think it is happening more, mainly because the internet provides a lot more opportunity for exposure. That, and people can travel more than ever before. There have always been people with this sort of urge for notoriety, it's just easier than ever for someone to visit a famous landmark and share photos or videos of them defacing it.
I don't see that as a likely possibility, considering the explosion in our population at the same time that humans also became interconnected across the globe. But that's not to say it's rampant or anything alarmist. Just that it seems impossible for kids to be on the internet and not be impacted by algorithmic content, we know how kids brains work and that's part of the problem we're facing. Companies use the information we know about how a child's mind works and they intentionally exploit it for profit, individuals do it more unintentionally.
But I will concede that it is possible that it's not happening more, like you point out.
The irony of his name living on thousands of years later is kind of funny.
I'm sure that social media attention is part of it, but I think it may also be sort of the reverse: our hyper-connected digital world means that we hear about more of it.
Some percentage of people have always gotten a high from the power of being able to damage or subvert cherished objects, traditions or beliefs. To a limited degree I think it's healthy. Certainly it's a normal part of adolescence.
It's a combination of exporing autonomy and the discovery that we can actually alter the world (when previously we lived entirely at the effect of it). That and usually mental health challenges when it goes to extremes.
I doubt there has been a dramatic increase in destructive behavior, indeed statistically it has decreased quite a lot. Instead there are just more people, and easier access to information.
I feel like I have to make it clear that I'm not defending what this kid did. I'm not offering myself as a stand in target for the understandable outrage something like this sparks.
It was obviously wrong, and sad. And also we're talking about a child. That doesn't excuse the behavior, but it should change how adults parse it.
The cynic in me says it's social media clout, and seeing as the perp is 16, probably not a lot of critical thinking involved.
I wonder what would vandals like these say if you came to their house and burned it down or broken their car's windows etc. They would get mad, yet they don't see their own actions as such.
Yeah, like I just don't get it. It was a popular historic landmark, what point was there in cutting it down? It's not like it was blocking someone's scenic view or something.
I feel like this has always been an issue, though not necessarily in the vein of "tourists seeking attention". People tear down buildings to build new ones, people cut down forests to make new settlements, destroy religious sites because they're "sacrilegious" to their own faith, etc. And of course, there have always been idiots who do it for no real reason other than bragging rights. It's only relatively recently we started to care about preserving historic sites and landmarks on such a large scale.
That said, I do think social media has exacerbated it by providing exposure on a wider scale, so the "bragging rights" crowd has much more opportunity and motivation than before.
Of course it's always been an issue in some form, but now it seems to be an everyday thing. People vandalizing or outright destroying historic fixtures for seemingly no reason or just for some Instagram/TikTok exposure. I don't see the point in bragging rights for something that will likely send you to jail or at the very least ensure that bankruptcy is in your future.
Reminds me of a similar incident in my hometown a few years back. There was a famous magic tree up the mountains that marked a spot on the road where, if you leave your car in neutral, it will seemingly roll uphill. Local people would hang little charms from the branches "for the fairies", a tradition surviving from pagan times. Some little bastard just cut it down one day, reasons unknown. Don't think they ever even caught who did it.
Um, was there another option? The young man was wildly swinging his chainsaw about in the dark and accidentally cut down a historic tree?
Anyway, the senselessness of this crime is beyond my comprehension. When they do find the perpetrator, the punishment should fit the crime - make the vandal plant a large new sycamore tree beside the old, and carry out a jug of water by hand to water it every day for five years so they know it will survive.
I read that as the CYA statement. Same as how they always lead with "such and such allegedly committed X crime" when there's crystal clear video of the perpetrator committing said crime, looking directly at the camera, while holding up two forms of photo ID and the current day's newspaper. Innocent until proven guilty.
Police are probably referring to a specific crime of Vandalism, which may or may not be what they charge him with once all the facts are in. Image a theft where police say it was definitely a deliberate act of burglary, but then they find some surveillance footage showing the perpetrator holding a knife while stealing items so it's escalated to robbery instead. It could be Vandalism is a minor charge versus something like destruction of a cultural heritage site instead (not a lawyer, not from the UK, etc.).
Just thinking for fun, but I like the idea of mandating they go tree planting (it's an actual, back-breaking job, and there are companies that operate in the UK) ... as volunteer work for a summer.
Though, your idea of caring for a tree over the course of years feels like it has real potential of a lesson about long-term impacts.
These types of vandalism stories are so difficult for me to wrap my head around.
A moral guideline I often find myself personally returning to is the idea that I can't unbreak something I've broken. I apply this idea to intangibles like relationships, but also quite literally to things. Of course, I recognize life is a constant state of change, and of course many things can be mended. But still, I find it helps to remind me to think about the consequences my actions may have (e.g., don't take for granted the people in my life; try to limit my contribution to throw-away culture), their permanence, and whether the outcomes are something I'm OK with.
I'm not saying this because I assume everyone is or should be like me. Rather, expressing why I find these stories so sad. Maybe, to eji1700's point, the people who choose to vandalize and destroy stuff are doing so weighing the personal 'clout' they (may) gain to outweigh the wider consequences. Maybe they just don't think about this at all. Are these types of actions so normalized that some people see it as no different than, say, writing your name in wet sidewalk cement? (A comparison that came to mind because, because as a brilliant youth, I may or may not have embedded my name into an ugly pubic sidewalk when the opportunity arose.)
Trying to figure out a motive behind this is rather mind-boggling. Some destruction of historic artifacts/sites involves an ideological motive, but if this was more just a random act of destruction, it's still curious why such a site was chosen and why the destruction was so pre-meditated that it's being called "skillfully done"
Are we at a societal level now where this is a new version of some kind of internet-fueled destructive behavior (swatting and other similar things also come to mind).
Edit: I think Eji1700's comment maybe answers my question
Well, they caught someone, so if they confess that’d be the answer. But my first guess would be anti-tourism. The tree is very famous, particularly for photographers - you can find a practically infinite number of shots on Instagram. They may feel ire for the tourists, and either just as a fuck you or a deterrent for future tourists, cut down the tree.
Or just revenge for some local actual or perceived wrong. Not that I condone it in the least, but if I was trying to get back at the local governance and had run out of options, then this would be an effective way of "hurting them like they hurt me or mine."
Again, not advocating, just tossing out a possible motive.
I really, really think we're giving the 16 year old kid too much credit here.
Could be as simple as thinking "no one cares about me, but they love and care for a tree, so I'll destroy the thing they care about because I'm mad that no one cares about me. "
Couldn't have cared too much if they didn't even try to save it.
I'm serious, set it back on the stump with long chunks of wood or metal in the hardwood to keep it together (cover everything with anti-fungal to prevent rot) then graph the heck out of it using bridge graphs. With any luck it'll restore the flow before the upper part dies. Might need to prop it up until it grows back together if it's too windy.
You can also graph stems to the edges of the stump to guarantee it regrows and there are tons of artistic things you can do with such graphs. Letting it naturally regrow is not the brightest idea. You could artistically shape it into a beautiful tree and it'd still be the same living tree.
Do you mean graft?
If you are indeed talking about grafting, I just don't see how this could possibly work here. Bridge grafting is used on trees that have only been partially girdled (so the tree is still standing and there is still some intact phloem feeding the upper portion of the tree) to help the tree close the wound faster. Maybe it would also work for a very small tree (like a sapling) that has been fully severed, although it would be very fiddly and kind of pointless.
But I just don't see how such a tall, thick tree could survive anywhere long enough for the grafts to take. Large trees transpire an enormous amount of water, particularly during the growing season. There is a reason that grafting is typically performed in the winter and uses pencil-thin one-year-old wood; it gives the tissue a chance to knit together before the scion dehydrates.
Yup, graft, I can't spell. :)
That makes sense. I've just never heard of a reason against doing it for bigger trees before now and I know it can be done for fruit trees with mixed results, though they are small enough to wrap your hand around.
the tree was in a UK National Park. I imagine they would be able to call up some of the best arborists in the entire country, the moment they noticed the tree had been cut down. if those arborists said it was feasible to save the tree, it seems like they would have done it.
do you have some background or expertise in tree care that you didn't mention in your comment? it seems kind of weird to second-guess the experts on this otherwise.
Never claimed to be an expert, but I have done some simple grafts and like anyone with access to the vast amounts of knowledge on the web I can look them up to know more. Though apparently grafting a large tree back together isn't actually possible as RoyalHenOil mentioned. It is still possible to graft cuttings to the original stump though.
Grafting wasn't mentioned in the article, which one would assume it would be if they considered it. It said they collected seeds and cuttings which sounded like they intend to just replant it. From another article I just ran across recently, the cuttings were for grafting which is good to hear.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/29/1202609966/despair-flows-after-englands-sycamore-gap-tree-is-cut-down-could-it-regrow
Is that even possible? The part that's been cut off would be effectively "dead". My attempts to search if it's possible so far bring up only scenarios like branches or vertical damage, I can't find anything about rearranging trees to stumps.
If it is possible, it would probably have to be done within hours. It's a pretty tall tree, so I think it would definitely need support. The time needed to gather the supplies, get equipment to hoist the tree into place, etc. might take too long for it to be feasible, especially since a few hours likely already passed before discovery. The "deadline" may have passed before it was even discovered.
It's a sycamore. That tree isn't dead yet. They can regrow after being felled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sycamore_Gap_Tree
While it is likely the boy wanted attention, I think it is equally likely that the boy had other motivations. Perhaps he felt that the tree did not deserve the attention that it got. Perhaps he was tired of seeing tourists all along the countryside. Perhaps he didn't like the movie Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. We just don't know.
A truly terrible loss. Hopefully the locals are able to come up with a fitting tribute, and the tree regrows in some form as they can after coppicing. If anyone wanted to read more, I thought this article from the BBC had some impactful quotes from local residents and visitors:
A few quotes
Edit: It sounds like I was right on the money about coppicing. It will still take 100+ years for the tree to get anywhere near the size it used to be, though. But, as the professor quoted at the end of this article notes, maybe this is a chance to grow a whole forest in its place.
I had not heard about this location beforehand or this tree but a lot of friends I have that live in and around Cumbria are really upset about this.
Well, I've thought about this story for a full 24 hours, and I initially cared about this tree, because vandals are big jerks; although, ultimately, I'm reminded that the British Empire subjugated thousands of native children to residential schools. On the eve before our national truth and reconciliation day, screw that tree in particular, bring people's families back. If a tree falls, people care, I get it. We can care about two things at once, I get it, but this grammable, historic tree isn't something I'm going to keep worrying about.