The mob that turned up in Titirangi, determined to save this particular kauri, does not seem to have expressed any sort of opinion regarding the failure, so far, to halt the incursion of kauri dieback disease that is wreaking havoc in stands of kauri around the upper North Island. Nor did they talk about the damage pests are doing to native forests in general, although it's a fair bet that 1080 would not have had a lot of support there. What we saw, however, was a reaction that is becoming increasingly common, every man and his dog leaping aboard what was clearly a popular bandwagon, and to hell with the processes that some of those people had themselves devised, or currently administer.
Environment Minister Nick Smith was one of the more restrained, saying he had told Auckland Mayor Len Brown that he would like to see the tree spared, "if at all possible", but that the government respected the fact that the decision was one for the council to make. Mr Brown said the council had a clear focus on protecting kauri, particularly in areas like the Waitakeres, but a resource consent to fell the tree had been lawfully applied for and granted, and that that decision had to stand.
Conservation Minister Maggie Barry did not support the felling of any mature kauri, and had urged the council to re-examine the process behind its decision not to publicly notify the application to get rid of it. Ms Barry might not have been in politics for long but she clearly has some talent.
On this occasion she might have acknowledged that it was her ministry that promulgated the rules that the council followed.
There might well be cause for all parties to sit down and re-examine those rules, particularly now given that the Resource Management Act is under review, but it seems a bit harsh to lambast a council that reportedly did what it had been told to do.
And there's the major rub. Politicians of all stripes are happy to tell people what they can and cannot do with their private property, but none are stumping up with the cash to make good their losses.
There is some funding - the Northland Regional Council makes substantial grants every year to help property owners protect their small patch of the natural environment - but by and large property owners who find that their land isn't worth what they thought it was, or what they paid for it, are on their own.
Meanwhile the developers who fired up this furore in Titirangi have offered a compromise. They will build what they can without felling the kauri or the rimu but removing some other trees, and have suggested that ownership be transferred, on public behalf, to Treescape, Vector, iwi and the council, so they can create something better "from this current mess".
They didn't have to wait long to hear the council it wouldn't be buying the site. Nor would Vector, which also expressed deep disappointment that it had been dragged into the dispute. A confidential discussion with the owners regarding how the kauri might be saved had also been launched into the public domain, and that was enough for Vector to walk away altogether.
None of that is likely to bother those who dragged themselves out of bed to save the tree. They've achieved what they set out to achieve, assuming nothing goes wrong at this late stage, although how the architects will respond to the council and Vector's lack of enthusiasm for buying the land remains to be seen. The protesters will now go back into hibernation until another developer wants to drop a tree to make way for houses or roads or something, and then the whole exercise will be repeated.
The lesson perhaps is to be careful about what you buy, especially if you have plans to develop it.
Those who don't approve of this sort of protest could at least regard the man who spent 75 hours up the kauri tree as its last line of defence with some respect. He said he would not be coming down until the developers' new proposal had gone through the proper legal processes, but when he did he would be handing himself in to the police. He accepted that he had trespassed on private property, although he clearly believed the cause had entitled him to do that.
Few if any of his ilk have given that a moment's thought in the past, but accepting that the tree was privately owned did not extend to conceding that ownership might confer certain rights. Apparently it doesn't any more.
This sort of controversy is all over once it makes the headlines, with the cost to be met by someone else.
Perhaps the best hope lies in the approach taken by the New Plymouth District Council, which has resolved that any likely new significant natural areas need not be covered by RMA rules to control how their owners manage them. Federated Farmers has long argued that land owner buy-in offers the best prospect of protection, and that farmers need support, education and incentives rather than rules.
The trust in property owners seems to be well founded. In the 12 years to 2008 Taranaki's indigenous land cover reduced by 0.02 per cent, despite an absence of rules prohibiting clearance. One farmer said he had voluntarily fenced, replanted and managed pests on his land but regarded regulations as a land grab. The council could not force land owners to manage pests or build fences, he said, and attempts to do so would only reduce goodwill and enthusiasm for doing so voluntarily.
The Titirangi protesters said last week that it was time for everyone to sit down and discuss how trees could be protected. That wouldn't be a bad outcome, if it includes how costs and/or losses are to be met, and by whom.
