I recall somebody mentioning that from the perspective of a layman or arborist who isn't as tree crazed as ourselves... Removing them with sufficient roots to support life and establish in a new location isn't worth the time or effort in their book. The average person simply cares that there are flowering cherry trees, they don't care if its the same one they've been appreciating their entire childhood.
Unfortunate, would've been nice to see the state give the trees a second lease on life by letting collectors try their hand.
The thing is cherry trees aren't long-lived. After 40-50 years they decline and die. The original gift trees from 1912 are 99 percent gone. They've been replaced over and over again using cuttings and other sources through the Park Service, from what I understand. Only a handful of the originals remain and even then the Park Service isn't entirely sure which ones they are.
As for allowing trees to be collected, that's a problem. Many of the trees that have been replaced were in advanced stages of decay and were shells of themselves with compromised trunks (Some very badly) etc. The decision to allow collectors to dig them up is fraught with problems -- who would be allowed to dig them and keep (sell/buy?) them -- private collectors, the Park Service?. Also relocating the trees is cost prohibitive and the "who's gonna pay for that " quotient is high...The trees are located in a National Park, which is already under stress from millions of tourists (guess what kill cherry trees relatively quickly? a million tourists compacting the ground and climbing in them breaking off limbs and taking cuttings --"one won't hurt the tree
" Maybe not but a thousand will.
www.washingtonian.com
