Tree planting charitys??
cecil
Does anyone out there support a scheme that will plant trees on your behalf?
I was thinking about doing this myself, but just wondered if anyone could
recomend a specific charity. The only one I've found for the UK is
http://www.futureforests.com/
Nigel
Olwyn Mawr
One thing to get clear is whether you literally want the tree(s) "planted
on your behalf". You'll get a wider choice if you don't mind your
dedication being linked to trees that have already been planted (which is
actually quite logical, as most of the cost is in the long-term care of the
woods, not the act of planting).
There are only a couple of national schemes, but there may well be local
ones- first place to check would probably be the national information body,
the Tree Council, which also co-ordinates events each autumn where you can
plant trees in managed woods yourself: www.treecouncil.org.uk :-)
AMacmil304
>From: "Olwyn Mawr" ol...@trochos.freeserve.co.uk
>Date: 13/10/02 19:47 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <aocfuo$vcd$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
>cecil wrote in message ...
>>
>>Does anyone out there support a scheme that will plant trees on your
>behalf?
>>I was thinking about doing this myself, but just wondered if anyone could
>>recomend a specific charity. The only one I've found for the UK is
>>http://www.futureforests.com/
>One thing to get clear is whether you literally want the tree(s) "planted
>on your behalf". You'll get a wider choice if you don't mind your
>dedication being linked to trees that have already been planted (which is
>actually quite logical, as most of the cost is in the long-term care of the
>woods, not the act of planting).
This sounds like a plug for the Woodland Trust Plant -a-Tree scheme for Olwyn
whose real name is David Bradbury who does or did work for them.
They offer to plant a "dedicated" tree for £10 in one of their woodlands but
you are not told where the tree is so can never really identify "your" tree or
trees. The saplings can be bought for a few pence and cost overall just over
£2 to plant - the rest of the money goes in administration and as a donation to
trust funds. Considering donations go to pay salaries (the CEO earns about
£80,000 a year) I don't call that value for money.
If you have the ground or can buy a bit cheaply you'd be better doing it
yourself.
The Woodland Trust will only plant on "their " ground.
>There are only a couple of national schemes, but there may well be local
>ones- first place to check would probably be the national information body,
>the Tree Council, which also co-ordinates events each autumn where you can
>plant trees in managed woods yourself: www.treecouncil.org.uk :-)
Why not contact your local Council Parks Department and ask if they would care
to plant some trees for you within your local community. That way you'd know
where they were and you could enjoy the benefit of seeing "your trees" reach
maturity.
Angus Macmillan
Roots-of-Blood Campaign
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org.uk
" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then they lose". Mahatma Gandhi.
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>This sounds like a plug for the Woodland Trust Plant -a-Tree scheme for Olwyn
>whose real name is David Bradbury who does or did work for them.
So he should be well up to date on details.
>
>They offer to plant a "dedicated" tree for £10 in one of their woodlands but
>you are not told where the tree is so can never really identify "your" tree or
>trees. The saplings can be bought for a few pence and cost overall just over
>£2 to plant - the rest of the money goes in administration and as a donation to
>trust funds. Considering donations go to pay salaries (the CEO earns about
>£80,000 a year) I don't call that value for money.
Why do you have this thing about what people earn? Why should a CEO in
o9ne organisation be worth less than one in an organisation of similar
size? You get what you pay for as you well know Angus.
>
>If you have the ground or can buy a bit cheaply you'd be better doing it
>yourself.
>
>The Woodland Trust will only plant on "their " ground.
Quite right too you would play hell if they came round and planted it on
yours :-)
>
>
>>There are only a couple of national schemes, but there may well be local
>>ones- first place to check would probably be the national information body,
>>the Tree Council, which also co-ordinates events each autumn where you can
>>plant trees in managed woods yourself: www.treecouncil.org.uk :-)
>
>Why not contact your local Council Parks Department and ask if they would care
>to plant some trees for you within your local community. That way you'd know
>where they were and you could enjoy the benefit of seeing "your trees" reach
>maturity.
This sounds like theme park conservation. I thought you were against
this Angus. Sur5ely the trees are better in a wood than in a local park
- from a conservation point of view. The post was to a conservation NG.
--
Malcolm Kane
AMacmil304
>Date: 13/10/02 23:30 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <OUR0nJFB...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk>
>
>In message <20021013170458...@mb-cj.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>This sounds like a plug for the Woodland Trust Plant -a-Tree scheme for
>Olwyn
>>whose real name is David Bradbury who does or did work for them.
>
>So he should be well up to date on details.
>>
>>They offer to plant a "dedicated" tree for £10 in one of their woodlands but
>>you are not told where the tree is so can never really identify "your" tree
>or
>>trees. The saplings can be bought for a few pence and cost overall just
>over
>>£2 to plant - the rest of the money goes in administration and as a donation
>to
>>trust funds. Considering donations go to pay salaries (the CEO earns about
>>£80,000 a year) I don't call that value for money.
>
>Why do you have this thing about what people earn? Why should a CEO in
>o9ne organisation be worth less than one in an organisation of similar
>size? You get what you pay for as you well know Angus.
Nonsense. Look at the fat cats in the insurance industry and the railway.
>>If you have the ground or can buy a bit cheaply you'd be better doing it
>>yourself.
>>
>>The Woodland Trust will only plant on "their " ground.
>
>Quite right too you would play hell if they came round and planted it on
>yours :-)
No. If they want to plant some trees on my ground they're very welcome - but no
killing wildlife and no toxins to control weeds.
>>
>>>There are only a couple of national schemes, but there may well be local
>>>ones- first place to check would probably be the national information body,
>>>the Tree Council, which also co-ordinates events each autumn where you can
>>>plant trees in managed woods yourself: www.treecouncil.org.uk :-)
>>
>>Why not contact your local Council Parks Department and ask if they would
>care
>>to plant some trees for you within your local community. That way you'd
>know
>>where they were and you could enjoy the benefit of seeing "your trees" reach
>>maturity.
>
>This sounds like theme park conservation. I thought you were against
>this Angus.
Public parks are for people to enjoy.
Sur5ely the trees are better in a wood than in a local park
>- from a conservation point of view. The post was to a conservation NG.
Woodlands should be wild places and not be places where wildlife are killed to
make them aesthetically pleasing. That's CONservation and the creation of
brownfield woodlands.
W K
AMacmil304 <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021014033908...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> Woodlands should be wild places and not be places where wildlife are
killed to
> make them aesthetically pleasing.
Is that a new allegation?
Where are animals killed to make woodland aesthetically pleasing?
BAC
"cecil" <ce...@hunmanby.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aobq9a$8ci$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
If you mean allowing you to sponsor trees in a developing woodland under the
control of the charity, you could do worse than visit
http://www.nationalforest.org/
who have tree planting and adoption schemes within the National Forest
scheme.
If you mean a charity willing to come along and plant trees for you on your
land, I don't know who might do that.
Olwyn Mawr
<20021013170458...@mb-cj.aol.com>...
>This sounds like a plug for the Woodland Trust Plant -a-Tree scheme
Well he would say that, wouldn't he?
>donations go to pay salaries
Ummm- yes, that's ultimately what money is for.
>(the CEO earns about £80,000 a year) I don't call that value for money.
My answer to that one, Mr Macmillan, remains the same as when you first
tried it.
>If you have the ground or can buy a bit cheaply you'd be better doing it
>yourself.
>
>The Woodland Trust will only plant on "their " ground.
Neither of the above statements is strictly true. But of course they aren't
lies- heaven forbid that Mr Macmillan should tell a lie (except to
himself).
>Why not contact your local Council Parks Department and ask if they would
care
>to plant some trees for you within your local community. That way you'd
know
>where they were and you could enjoy the benefit of seeing "your trees"
reach
>maturity.
Worth a try- just keep your fingers crossed that they don't decide to build
a new leisure centre (a situation familiar to admirers of the "Forest" park
in Nottingham). Councils don't have a remit to protect and expand woodland.
AMacmil304
>Date: 14/10/02 09:51 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <dCvq9.30$C03...@news.uk.colt.net>
In Woodland Trust properties. They admit that deer are killed to allow
bluebells and oxslip to grow and that also state that their woods are
aesthetically pleasing.
Nothing new about that!
Angus Macmillan
Roots-of-Blood Campaign
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org.uk
" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then they lose". Mahatma Gandhi.
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>In Woodland Trust properties. They admit that deer are killed to allow
>bluebells and oxslip to grow and that also state that their woods are
>aesthetically pleasing.
>
>Nothing new about that!
Perhaps but you are taking a giant leap when one does not exist. Deer
are killed to maintain the biodiversity and to protect certain species.
This is not the same as killing to make them aesthetic as well you know.
The woods may end up more aesthetically pleasing because there is a
bigger range of plants including bluebells and oxlip but that does not
say the deer are killed to make the wood aesthetically pleasing.
--
Malcolm Kane
Olwyn Mawr
<20021014152214...@mb-bg.aol.com>...
>>>
>>> Woodlands should be wild places and not be places where wildlife are
>>> killed to make them aesthetically pleasing.
>>
>
>In Woodland Trust properties. They admit that deer are killed to allow
>aesthetically pleasing.
I suspect that even Lord Eassie would ROFLHAO if he reads that particular
piece of Macmillan logic.
W K
> >Subject: Re: Tree planting charitys??
> >From: "W K" bill...@wire2.com
> >Date: 14/10/02 09:51 GMT Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <dCvq9.30$C03...@news.uk.colt.net>
> >
> >
> >AMacmil304 <amacm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20021014033908...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> >
> >> Woodlands should be wild places and not be places where wildlife are
> >killed to
> >> make them aesthetically pleasing.
> >
> >Is that a new allegation?
> >
> >Where are animals killed to make woodland aesthetically pleasing?
>
> In Woodland Trust properties. They admit that deer are killed to allow
> bluebells and oxslip to grow
You speciest git.
So deer are more important than other species in the wood are they?
AMacmil304
>Date: 14/10/02 23:58 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <aofj20$1n1$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>
Not what I say; what the WT says.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <aSPq9.68$C03...@news.uk.colt.net>
You thick git.
I wouldn't cut plants down to starve deer nor would I kill deer to protect
plants.
AMacmil304
>Date: 14/10/02 08:39 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <sYuq9.10$My1....@news.dircon.co.uk>
>
>
>"cecil" <ce...@hunmanby.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:aobq9a$8ci$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Hi there
>>
>> Does anyone out there support a scheme that will plant trees on your
>behalf?
>> I was thinking about doing this myself, but just wondered if anyone could
>> recomend a specific charity. The only one I've found for the UK is
>> http://www.futureforests.com/
>>
>
>If you mean allowing you to sponsor trees in a developing woodland under the
>control of the charity, you could do worse than visit
>http://www.nationalforest.org/
>
>who have tree planting and adoption schemes within the National Forest
>scheme.
I sent them this email yesterday:
Do you or your partners kill wildlife such as deer, foxes, squirrels, rabbits
etc and is hunting with hounds allowed on any of the land on which you plant
trees?
You offer to plant a tree for any member of the public for £25. I understand
the cost of a sapling is approx. 25p, and altogether when planted and
maintained is just a little over £2. How do you arrive at £25.
I hope you will consider these to be questions that will be of interest to the
general public and will answer them.
Perhaps they will; more likely they won't.
W K
No, you'd let your favourite species destoy 100s other organisms directly
and indirectly.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <EySq9.94$C03...@news.uk.colt.net>
Let's have a list.
AMacmil304
>Date: 15/10/02 11:42 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20021015064239...@mb-fl.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: Tree planting charitys??
>>From: "BAC" cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk
>>Date: 14/10/02 08:39 GMT Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <sYuq9.10$My1....@news.dircon.co.uk>
>>
>>
>>"cecil" <ce...@hunmanby.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:aobq9a$8ci$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Hi there
>>>
>>> Does anyone out there support a scheme that will plant trees on your
>>behalf?
>>> I was thinking about doing this myself, but just wondered if anyone could
>>> recomend a specific charity. The only one I've found for the UK is
>>> http://www.futureforests.com/
>>>
>>
>>If you mean allowing you to sponsor trees in a developing woodland under the
>>control of the charity, you could do worse than visit
>>http://www.nationalforest.org/
>>
>>who have tree planting and adoption schemes within the National Forest
>>scheme.
>
>I sent them this email yesterday:
>
>Do you or your partners kill wildlife such as deer, foxes, squirrels, rabbits
>etc and is hunting with hounds allowed on any of the land on which you plant
>trees?
>
>the cost of a sapling is approx. 25p, and altogether when planted and
>
>I hope you will consider these to be questions that will be of interest to
>the
>general public and will answer them.
>
>
>Perhaps they will; more likely they won't.
They didn't! Surprise, surprise!
BAC
understand
> >the cost of a sapling is approx. 25p, and altogether when planted and
> >
> >I hope you will consider these to be questions that will be of interest
to
> >the
> >general public and will answer them.
> >
> >
> >Perhaps they will; more likely they won't.
>
>
> They didn't! Surprise, surprise!
>
With reference to the price, I should imagine they charge £25, because
sufficient people are willing to pay that amount. They don't claim to be
doing it 'at cost', and I'd guess that the sort of person who is willing to
sponsor a tree wouldn't mind too much if the surplus over cost went towards
planting more trees than the one with their name on it. They wouldn't want
their tree to be lonely, after all :-)
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <U3Wt9.3$691....@news.dircon.co.uk>
Most businesses work on a profit of no more than 50% with a few exceptions such
as jewellery and clothing. I would even expect the tree charity could be about
100% but if by arithmetic is correct this organisation is charging 1250% or
thereabouts.
The trees would be less lonely if they planted 5 for £25 :-)
AMacmil304
>Date: 24/10/02 17:39 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <++9UpTQrI...@indaal.demon.co.uk>
>
>
>In article <20021024121028...@mb-ff.aol.com>, AMacmil304
><amacm...@aol.com> writes
>>>From: amacm...@aol.com (AMacmil304)
>>>Message-id: <20021015064239...@mb-fl.aol.com>
>>>>From: "BAC" cass...@NOSPAMdircon.co.uk
>>>>Message-id: <sYuq9.10$My1....@news.dircon.co.uk>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you mean allowing you to sponsor trees in a developing woodland under
>the
>>>>control of the charity, you could do worse than visit
>>>>http://www.nationalforest.org/
>>>>
>>>>who have tree planting and adoption schemes within the National Forest
>>>>scheme.
>>>
>>>I sent them this email yesterday:
>>>
>>>Do you or your partners kill wildlife such as deer, foxes, squirrels,
>rabbits
>>>etc and is hunting with hounds allowed on any of the land on which you
>plant
>>>trees?
>>>
>>>You offer to plant a tree for any member of the public for £25. I
>understand
>>>the cost of a sapling is approx. 25p, and altogether when planted and
>>>maintained is just a little over £2. How do you arrive at £25.
>>>
>>>I hope you will consider these to be questions that will be of interest to
>>>the
>>>general public and will answer them.
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps they will; more likely they won't.
>>
>>
>>They didn't! Surprise, surprise!
>>
>such loaded and biassed questions. Surprise, surprise!
I see they only want to answer nice questions that don't give them bad
publicity.
Another CONservation organisation.
BAC
> >> >
> >> >You offer to plant a tree for any member of the public for £25. I
> >understand
> >> >the cost of a sapling is approx. 25p, and altogether when planted and
> >> >maintained is just a little over £2. How do you arrive at £25.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >With reference to the price, I should imagine they charge £25, because
> >sufficient people are willing to pay that amount. They don't claim to be
> >doing it 'at cost', and I'd guess that the sort of person who is willing
to
> >sponsor a tree wouldn't mind too much if the surplus over cost went
towards
> >planting more trees than the one with their name on it. They wouldn't
want
> >their tree to be lonely, after all :-)
>
> Most businesses work on a profit of no more than 50% with a few exceptions
such
> as jewellery and clothing. I would even expect the tree charity could be
about
> 100% but if by arithmetic is correct this organisation is charging 1250%
or
> thereabouts.
>
Most businesses work on the sort of margins you mention, because of
competition from other businesses operating in the same sector. That
competition usually determines the 'going rate' for whatever goods or
services the business supplies, and a firm operating at the going rate or
slightly below is likely to maximise its income.
The tree planting charities don't seem to have that much competition at the
moment, so, if sufficient people are willing to pay £25 to have a tree
planted in their name, and gross income would not be increased by reducing
the price (perhaps because the numbers of people wanting to have trees
planted in their name might not increase proportionately to a drop in price)
there's no incentive or business imperative for them to do so.
Similarly, when charities sell goods which have been donated to them free of
charge, obviously, costs are low, but they still try to sell them for as
much as possible, irrespective of the notional mark up per item.
> The trees would be less lonely if they planted 5 for £25 :-)
>
True, and they probably do, only the purchaser doesn't have his name
assigned to four of them :-)
Chris Raper
[snipped for brevity]
>Most businesses work on a profit of no more than 50% with a few exceptions such
>as jewellery and clothing. I would even expect the tree charity could be about
>100% but if by arithmetic is correct this organisation is charging 1250% or
>thereabouts.
Hi Angus
If I've been following this thread closely enough, my understanding is
that for £25, a tree will be planted in the donor's name?
I would expect this service would also include:
* administration of the scheme
* the services of a worker (or two) to actually go out and plant
batches of trees...?
* materials - i.e. protective wrapping to prevent deer & rabbit eating
the saplins - or a stake to support the sapling
* the cost of the land they plant the trees on OR the cost of liasing
with a landowner to have trees planted
Then there are also secondary costs such as the follow-up work that
needs to happen - replanting dead trees, removing stakes etc,
management of the ground around the trees etc...
Just a thought, but it doesn't seem too unjust to me. High margins,
(e.g. by clothing companies) are usually there for a reason - i.e.
they have large indirect business costs (usually admin & financial)
associated with providing the core service. :-)
Best wishes,
Chris R.
AMacmil304
>Message-id: <DG6u9.5$691....@news.dircon.co.uk>
True, but there should be a moral responsibility not to charge five times the
going rate. Regulators in some industries have to ensure that the public are
not being charged too much where there is a no competition monopoly. Railways
spring to mind.
>The tree planting charities don't seem to have that much competition at the
>moment, so, if sufficient people are willing to pay £25 to have a tree
>planted in their name, and gross income would not be increased by reducing
>the price (perhaps because the numbers of people wanting to have trees
>planted in their name might not increase proportionately to a drop in price)
>there's no incentive or business imperative for them to do so.
I don't think people know just how little it costs to plant a tree - even
without grant support. Do you think many would buy the tree if the charity
said it cost them a couple of pounds?
>Similarly, when charities sell goods which have been donated to them free of
>charge, obviously, costs are low, but they still try to sell them for as
>much as possible, irrespective of the notional mark up per item.
I have to disagree wit you on this. Many charity shops sell goods well below
that what the goods are worth. Remember the £500 bicycle that was left at a
charity shop by its owner while she went next door and was sold for a tenner.
>
>> The trees would be less lonely if they planted 5 for £25 :-)
>>
>
>True, and they probably do, only the purchaser doesn't have his name
>assigned to four of them :-)
I hate to think of lonely trees.
AMacmil304
>Date: 25/10/02 12:38 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <5iairu8mb7tb608bd...@4ax.com>
Hello Chris
I think the costs you mention are included in the difference between an 18p
sapling from a nursery and the £2+ it costs to plant the tree and maintain it.
Most likely there will also be a grant (50%?) from the forestry authority, so
the net cost of the tree could be as low as £1.
BAC
Yes, there is price regulation in some industries (which I have always
considered strange, seeing how retail price maintenance was abolished, and
one of the justifications cited for privatisation of utilities was the
introduction of competition into the market) but, mainly, they seem to be
for monopoly or near monopoly 'essential' services. Buying or sponsoring a
tree in a forest or woodland development isn't an essential service, and I'd
guess a lot of the people who avail themselves of offers like this see it
almost like a donation to the organisation concerned. Similar, perhaps, to
'buying' a Remembrance Day poppy for whatever one feels appropriate to
contribute - the cost of manufacture and distribution of the poppy is
largely irrelevant.
> >The tree planting charities don't seem to have that much competition at
the
> >moment, so, if sufficient people are willing to pay £25 to have a tree
> >planted in their name, and gross income would not be increased by
reducing
> >the price (perhaps because the numbers of people wanting to have trees
> >planted in their name might not increase proportionately to a drop in
price)
> >there's no incentive or business imperative for them to do so.
>
> I don't think people know just how little it costs to plant a tree - even
> without grant support. Do you think many would buy the tree if the
charity
> said it cost them a couple of pounds?
>
Yes, I think many of them would, because, as well as the sponsored tree
(which is just a gimmick, anyway, IMO) they would perhaps get a warm feeling
from thinking they were supporting the project.
>
> >Similarly, when charities sell goods which have been donated to them free
of
> >charge, obviously, costs are low, but they still try to sell them for as
> >much as possible, irrespective of the notional mark up per item.
>
> I have to disagree wit you on this. Many charity shops sell goods well
below
> that what the goods are worth. Remember the £500 bicycle that was left at
a
> charity shop by its owner while she went next door and was sold for a
tenner.
>
The lady or the bike? Seriously, I do recall that, and it does seem daft
selling a bike so cheaply, even though it cost the Charity nothing, and I
can only imagine the sales staff concerned had no idea of the market value
of that item. One of the Charities with a shop on the High Street of 'my'
town regularly sends a valuer round its shops to cast an eye over donated
goods to identify any of particular value and ensure they are 'properly'
priced, especially antiques and 'collectables'. Given the range of stuff
likely to come into the average charity shop, it's a tall order expecting
the staff there to be sufficiently clued up to infallibly sort the wheat
from the chaff.
> >
> >> The trees would be less lonely if they planted 5 for £25 :-)
> >>
> >
> >True, and they probably do, only the purchaser doesn't have his name
> >assigned to four of them :-)
>
> I hate to think of lonely trees.
>
Me also - even a tree needs a friend or two, to quote the late Bob Ross.
Incidentally, Angus, given your previous pronouncements about the salaries
of Chief Executives of charities, what do you think about the new Chief Exec
of the RSPCA, who, if the press are correct, is on £90,000 pa, but seems to
have no relevant administrative experience?
Malcolm Kane
<amacm...@aol.com> writes
>Most businesses work on a profit of no more than 50% with a few exceptions such
>as jewellery and clothing. I would even expect the tree charity could be about
>100% but if by arithmetic is correct this organisation is charging 1250% or
>thereabouts.
The mistake you are making Angus is that they are not a business. They
are a charity who are raising as much money as possible so that they can
expand and continue their work into the foreseeable future.
Profit is not in most (all/) peoples eyes not a consideration, the more
money they can make the more they can expand their work which is I am
sure what all of us want.
--
Malcolm Kane