Well, it sure is easy to declare someone an "arch-enemy" when she's already lost everything and already faced an unbearable amount of shaming from the public.

Killing those trees was obviously a terribly stupid and selfish action to take, and it's an action deserving of some very harsh punishment, but from all accounts Mrs. Matheson has already endured quite a bit of that.

The woman lost everything important to her. She's lost her job, her home and all of her social status. She's admitted wrongdoing and donated $50,000 in order to make reparations. Truly, what more would you ask of a 70 year-old-woman?

To declare this woman TH's 'Arch-Enemy' completely stupid. There are very large interests out there right now who stand for this type of greed and selfishness, but on a scale so much larger. These institutions threaten to convert all of our enviromental and social interests into profit for themselves and to leave the other 6 billion or so people on this planet with nothing. THESE people are the real enemy, not a selfish 70 year-old in Vancouver, who by now I'm sure has seen the err of her ways!

Its very unfortunate that this woman got off so easy. If you google about you'll find there have been a number of these cases, and everyone happily pays out the paltry minimum fines. Its got to the point where the affluent in BC seem to view paying the fines a cost of doing business, much like corporate polluters. I'm sure it won't be long until someone figures a way to write this off in their taxes like big business does in Canada.

Shame on TH for making this ridiculous 'arch-enemy' declaration. What a complete waste of time and display of an utter lack of compassion.

First of all, this woman made a horribly stupid, incredibly selfish mistake. I find her actions contemptible and completely morally bankrupt. In planning to poison those trees and in carrying out her plan, she showed an extremely ugly picture of herself to her community and now the world.

However, she has already suffered greatly because of her selfishness. She's lost her home, her business, many friends and certainly her status in her community. And she has attempted to make amends by donating $50 000 in order to replace the trees she killed as well as provide for other Vancouver park improvements. What more are you asking a 70 year-old woman give? She will live with the shame of this decision for the rest of her life, and she doesn't have the benefit of youth to make up for her mistake through years of changed behavior. I'm sure that she is living now with the realization that after she's gone, THIS act, among all other acts in her life, will be what she's remembered for.

And this pathetic woman, who has lost so much (and deserved to lose so much), but is attempting to make restitution, is TreeHugger's avowed "ARCH-ENEMY"? Give me a break! There are HUGE multinational interests operating right now who seek to transform all of our enviromental and social resources into financial assets for themselves! They want to take away people's rights and controll access to (ie: force you to pay for) most of the things that people enjoy. Bio Tech is reducing farmers' ability to keep their own seed! Oil companies are dominating politics and the media! The RIAA and the MPAA want to control our experience of entertainment and are stifiling creativity by ensuring that a draconian copyright laws are extended indefinitly! AND YOU WANT TO MAKE A 70 YEAR-OLD LADY TREEHUGGER'S ARCH-ENEMY??

Why don't you leave the lady alone and go after something more meaningful?!

My wife and I took a trip to Vancouver this past September. We loved the city. Vancouver felt like the city of the future to me. I have lived in Orlando , Atlanta and London. Vancouver was the best city I had lived in or even visited. We spent a lot of time in Stanely park. I am stunned that anyone could have been so selfesh as to kill the amazing trees that make Stanely park and Vancouver such a unique and wonderful place.

Tom, I think you left your sense of humour at home or something. But then, I guess that on the net if a tongue in cheek comment isn't written in neon, some people are bound to miss it.

The arch enemy thing: We are TREE HUGGER, she is TREE KILLER. Doesn't that sound like some kind of nemesis in a batman episode or something?

Of course we're bright enough to put things in perspective and know that killing a few trees is different from what some corporations do. This story is an interesting read, but we don't claim that it is anywhere near the level of being an important issue (even though that woman exhibited EXACTLY the same kind of behavior, on an individual level, that corporations do - and I bet you are not so quick to defend them even after they lose some money and business even if what they did was just "a selfish mistake").

Stop being condescending and lighten up, please.

As 80% of Australians live near the coast, this has become a big issue with homeowners lopping trees for coastal views. Local councils would replant new trees, but then find these ripped out or poisoned as well. So now they simply erect huge banners in the recently denuded areas, proclaiming "trees destroyed by vandals". Not the sort of thing one likes to see outside their front window everyday - especially if you have guests around to 'admire the view'.

MGR:


Fair enough and sorry for not clueing in on the sarcasm. Also, I didn't mean to be condescending and you have my apologies if that's what was expressed.

I guess I feel a bit emotional about this particular story because I've seen it all over the place today, and everywhere with a tone of complete condemnation (which is of course deserved) but often with a complete lack of compassion. Yes, this woman deserved punishment but she's had it already in spades and I don't see the point in vilifying her further.

The difference between Ms. Matheson and a corporation though, is that Ms. Matheson is a human being who is due some level of respect, which I don't believe that corporate entities are. So you're right that I wouldn't defend a corporation so, well, pissily, but corporations usually have the resources to hire teams of lawyers and PR people who do all the defending for them.

In any event, I mistook this article as being a more serious in tone than was intended, and though I hate to admit to raising the level of internet-snark on a given day, I concede that my comments were a tad emotional. In the future I'll try to take a few deep breaths before responding angrily to a post.

This is what I wonder about...

What other ways has this woman's sociopathic behavior manifested itself, but didn't attract any attention? People don't make "one time mistakes" on this scale. I am confident in assuming she has brought misery to many of the people she has crossed paths with over her life. I'm also sure that she is absolutely ignorant of the fact that her behavior has been unacceptable. You know, like the scorpion and the (insert swimming animal here) story. It is just in her nature.

The only thing that changes people like this is the constant reminder that behaving like this will result in pain/punishment. Let her off the hook, forgive her, let things drop, show her some compassion, and she will do something like this again the next day.

I say (tongue in cheek), an egged window a day keeps the sociopath at bay. :)

Don't worry about it, Tom. I understand how you could have thought it was a bit too much if you first took the "arch enemy" bit seriously.