tigerjeb Wrote:http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/200...forest-04/

the tree huggers are mad that the zoo uprooted 139 trees to build the $13.5 million Teton Trek. you know - the project that has been on the boards for 10 or so years. the one that will replace those 140 trees with over 500 new ones.

good greif - some just like to have something to complain about. they are taking unusable park land, giving it a good purpose and use AND improving the quality and quantity of the flora in the area. whats the problem with that?

A bunch of tree hugging hippes that just need something to go protest about after leaving their anti-war meetings in their hybrid cars while going out of route so they can drive by wal-mart and give it the finger....

tigerjeb Wrote:

umbluegray Wrote:They didn't want the new section of the zoo. They wanted an interestate instead.

an academic question. because the I-40 did not go straight through town, saving that forrest, forcing the construction of the north leg of the 240 loop and expansion of the south leg, adding about 20 or so miles to the journey through memphis, in an ecological sense were those trees ultimately more valuable than the tons of extra exhaust pollutants and billions of gallons of gasoline consumed because of the extra mileage and time?

dont confuse tree huggers with facts and logic...

they are the same people who are against coal burning, wood burning, gas, and nuclear and then stopped a dam which produces ZERO emissions because of a snail darter.....

TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:Oops. wasn't finished. The only thing I don't like about Overton Park is what kind of person might be lurking behind those trees. When was the last time anyone here actually walked through the forrested areas of Overton Park. I think my last trip through was when I used to play golf there back in the 80's. It was scary not knowing who you were going to meet. I don't know about now but there used to be some VERY STRANGE people that lurked in the park.

Strange? That's queer.

Only tree huggers have consideration for the welfare of future generations.

Yeah, sure, trees are a newable resource. It will take about 200 years to renew what the City just cut down.

Don't we have any scientists on here who can 'splain to us all a bit better than I can what the City just destroyed?

NJ1 Wrote:Wow. I didn't realize that having consideration for the welfare of future generations was so frowned upon here.

Most of us are desperately trying to dispose of our future generations inheritance because it's true that youth is wasted on the young. I say let em eat pinecone nuts.