This bastard illegally destroyed 300 oak trees on his property. How many thousand years of collective growth was that?
Here’s hoping his cellmate finds him to be real “purty.”
I could rant about this sort of evil for hours.
Was he at least building a Man O’ War? I guess that 300 trees should equal about 1/3 of one.
I bet that he gets neither a fine nor gaol time. Although it sure seems like he deserves them.
Am I to understand that in Ventura, California it is illegal to determine what kinds of plants, if any, a person may have on property which he legally owns?
May rabid squirrels climb up the asses of the Ventura legislators.
Zenster, I believe you are taking the wrong tack on this. If you had bothered to do a little research it might have proved enlightening and you would have changed your position.
According to the CDC, rabies in squirrels is extremely rare and the rodents have never been known to pass rabies to a human host (at least in the U.S.). Therefore, a wiser position to take would be “may rapid bats crawl up this man’s ass”. Bats will also make their homes in oak trees.
Or a rabid skunk. He would have the added pleasure of the perfume.
manhattan, our little town has a strong tree preservation ordinance, too, but if you go through channels you can usually do what you want. My guess is that Ventura does, too. Also, this man evidently aslo rerouted a creek, which could have signficant flooding consequences.
Need some background here for us East Coasters. On this coast, bulldozing trees might be a minor zoning infraction, but the oak tree is hardly an endangered or protected species. (As a matter of fact, I’m going to be killing hundreds of maple saplings this spring just by mowing the lawn – we had a bumper crop of maple seeds fall last autumn.) I know California is hurting for trees, but I’m a bit surprised that the oak is protected. What’s the motivation for this protection?
Were the oaks cleared to make way for development? Did the deforestation increase erosion risks? Give us some context here.
(BTW, I see you live in Silicon Valley. Which means you’re probably living on ex-orchard lands. Sleep well.)
Policy outline for protection of oak woodlands in CA counties
More than you ever wanted to know about California Oaks and oak laws and legislation.
Who needs property rights anyways? :rolleyes:
Without more information, it’s difficult to determine if the fellow is a villain or not.
I’m recalling the story of an older gentleman who owned a property in Morrisville, PA which was a mini dump, and he elected to clean it up, remove the trash, and regrade the landscape.
Because a portion of the parcel was considered wetlands, the environmental police fined the fellow and threw him in the pokey, despite the fact that he had actually improved the property.
I’d provide a cite, but the search engine of the newspaper in which I read the story does not go back that far.
62 dogs? He kept 62 dogs on his property? How? WHY?
I’ve never liked nor trusted trees. I’m pretty sure they’re up to something. Let’s face it, they’re basically giant tentacles spring up out of the ground in extremely slow motion. And if there’s one thing a life time of creepy Japanes animated porn had taught me, it’s “Watch out for giant tentacles.” I applaud this man’s actions to save us all from the Leafy Menace. Down with trees!
I blame the trees for all the typos in my last post.
OK, I thoughly object being put in any orifice.
I don’t condone any unnecessary tree violence, but I don’t go spelunking around anybody’s anal cavity for free.
Please give give me 48 hours notice beforehand, it takes a lot of time to organise the equipment. Oh, and a 30% downpayment too.
Oh… dear God that was funny
No, but, seriously, 300 trees is no joke. Rabid_Squirrel, please consider the offer 
Not yet anyway. Let’s see:
Three-hundred trees walked into a bar…
Well, you’d send CLONES of him up his ass, because it’s plural.
Manny, perhaps you are unfamiliar with “heritage” tree laws that require permission prior to cutting a standing tree with a trunk larger than 6" in diameter. This does not include saplings or shrubs. Such legislation prevents property owners from felling landmark and historic trees. One can obtain permission to cut even very large trees, but you must first obtain approval. The sort of deforestation perpetrated by William Kaddis can have dire consequences for wild species habitats, water quality and scenic beauty.
6"? Thats a fucking shrub, not a tree. Ah well. Fruits, nuts, and California. What a combo!
I like the “tree.convict” part of the Web address – as if the story was going to be about a bad sycamore on a rampage.
Brutus, how would you feel if you had just paid some million plus dollars for a piece of property bordered on by an expanse of large trees only to suddenly find them all cut down on a whim without notice?
Would this have any impact on your own property value?
Would it affect the natural beauty of the area?
Would it have any impact on soil erosion upon your own property?
Would it have any impact upon local watercourses or runoff?
Would this affect wildlife populations on your own property?
Feel free to address any of the above questions. California possesses some of the most fantastic scenic beauty of any state in the union. While I am no tree-hugger, you better believe that rampant destruction of the natural environment has become a critical issue for the quality of life in this state.
We are not talking about one single three. There were THREE HUNDRED of them. That is a substantial size forest. Let’s say there is one tree every thirty feet. This is a rather conservative estimation.
Square root of 300 = 17 + change
17 x 30’ = 500 feet + change
500’ = ~1/10 mile
So we are talking about an expanse of trees that is a minimum of one tenth of a mile on a side. Given that large oaks (the type you get in trouble for cutting) more likely grow even farther apart, you are suddenly looking at a rather large expanse of oak forest being annihilated. I strongly believe in property owners’ rights. I do not believe that purchasing a piece of land fully entitles you to ignore the biosystem’s health.
What Kaddis did was criminal in terms of destroying vital habitat and intensely beautiful scenery. As I mentioned, 300 trees represents a few thousands years of collective growth time. We, as a people, do not have an overabundance of arboreal resources. This prohibits such reckless disregard for how difficult it is to replace slow growing trees like oaks. Take a look at the massive tracts of deforested European land that suffered during the shipbuilding colonial era. We have no need to duplicate that sort of environmental damage here.