Bette Midler has long championed environmentalist causes, but apparently that didn’t stop her from cutting down 230 trees on her Hawaiian property. The state will fine The Compost Queen $6500 for removing the trees and grading a road without the proper permits:
Bette Midler cut down more than 230 trees around one of her properties on the island of Kauai without a permit, and the state has recommended she be fined.
The staff of the Board of Land and Natural Resources recommended $6,500 in fines for having the trees felled and for building a graded road without permits required for the land zoned for conservation use. …
The actress and movie star, who was born in Honolulu, didn’t realize permits were needed to remove the trees on a vacant 58,000-square-foot parcel of land on Kauai’s North Shore, Graham said.
“The whole idea with cutting the trees down was with the idea of improving the lot with native species” instead of the nonnative, invasive species that had grown there, Graham said. “It’s unfortunate that a mistake was made.”
So it’s not enough to love trees — people have to love non-immigrant trees? We’re not talking kudzu or crabgrass here, either. The trees removed were mostly Java plum trees and octopus trees, with a dozen or so olive trees to boot.
So how many “native” trees did Midler intend to plant? Removing 230 trees would be like denuding a small forest; it leaves a lot of land bare. The road going through the area doesn’t sound as though Midler intended on planting a new small forest to replace them, either. Now that she has been cited for her actions, she’s hiring the National Tropical Botanical Garden to design a replanting plan, but one wonders why she felt the need to remove so many flourishing trees in the first place.
That’s what makes celebrity environmentalists and activists so much fun. Their activism appears to end at their personal inconvenience. If Bette Midler wants to cut down trees on her own property, that should be her business — and environmentalists like her should allow others to do what they want with their own private property as well.
Environmentalists; like other call to action movements; love to preach to us common folk, but seem very free and easy with their ways.
BTW, how about all the fossil fuel used to: bring machinery and crew to the site, fell the trees, load them onto trucks, and ship them off the property.
Will the fallen trees be burned thus emitting that carbon they loath so much?
So it’s not enough to love trees — people have to love non-immigrant trees?
Yes, actually. Invasive species of plants and animals are a significant problem in Hawaii. And everywhere, actually. Zebra mussels, gypsy moths, green crabs, walking catfish, spurge, kudzu, mute swans, water-milfoil, and many more.
I can’t tell from the article what Midler actually had in mind for this cleared land, but I’d say that if she actually intended to produce a natural-looking tract of native Hawaiian forest trees, then she was trying to do something good.
I’m not so sure how much of a typical “environmentalist” that Midler is. The things that I have seen her do is build community gardens on vacant lots in NYC in poor neighborhoods. Her foundation buys the lots and then gets the community to work together to maintain the garden, plant fresh veggies, etc… They provide shade and a nice place to relax for older folks and some grass to play in for little kids.
Hard for me to see how that is a bad thing.
I’m not surprised.
Some environmentalists are far too serious about things like that and insist everything be “native” plants. While it is true that some invasive species are a huge problem (as some in ranching, I’ll refer specifically to leafy spurge), that’s a fraction of the plants that are non-native. A lot of ranchers will use, say, Kentucky blue grass instead of native prairie grasses because they grow better and produce better grass for livestock.
The usual problem with invasive species is that they grow too quickly and push the native species out. I don’t see that as being a problem with trees, to be honest.
My cousin lives there. There are a number of poorly organized and uncoordinated, but very serious efforts underway to remove transplant species, both in flora and fauna, and try to bolster the vastly decreased native spiecies. Many of the original species have been eliminated or severely decreased from landscaping over the last century or more.
Don’t have any specific infomation about Middler’s involvement in any of this, but we all know what happened with the introduction of non-native snakes to the islands. You may want to research this one a bit more before casting stones. There is a serious environmental concern on the islands which shouldn’t just be poo-poo’d away as “tree hugging hippies” or whatever the disparaging term of the day is now.
58,000 square feet is a bit over 2 acres. Plus a road. Could you provide before and after pictures ? People in the land clearing and road grading business around here are very much aware of the permit requirements.
58,000 SF is actually about 1.33 acres. Unless the property is very narrow and very long, any road on said parcel would be more accurately described as a driveway.
Does anybody out there remember the late John Denver who campaigned so virulently against building in the Colorado mountains? This is the same John Denver who dynamited half a mountain to build his mountain home. These rich and famous must all have caught a bug from Al Gore.
The article said that the trees were butchered to provide room for a road. The response from Midler’s rep is that they were removed so they could plant native species.
Fine. Plant trees. Deny a permit to build the driveway.
58,000 square feet is actually about 1.33 acres. But in any event, does this article mean the entire parcel (which is noted as merely ONE of Ms. Midler’s properties on the island) was 58,000 square feet, or only the part where the trees were removed?
Looks to me like she has a 1.33 acre parcel that is now devoid of trees – she cut down 1 tree for about every 250 square feet of land.
On the other hand, the lot size of 58,000 square feet is about 1.3 acres. Removing 230 trees for a road would indicate that the trees were pretty small, or the road was real big, or the lot was overgrown.
$6500 is chump change to Midler, compared to going through what can be a lengthy and uncertain permit process. Better to ask forgiveness than seek permission.
It’s unbelievable how rich these Hollywood nitwits have become, with their marginal talents.
Midler “acted” in piffle movies, belted out boring, childish ditties like a cow in labor and was never much to look at, frankly. Big deal.
For this she’s a multi-millionaire.
No wonder she has liberal guilt. Having never worked a real day in her life and parlayed her less than marginal talents into a king’s ransom, she should want to “give back”. She should give it all back.
We’ve gone from divine right to celebrity based on, what exactly? Being a celebrity? Talent certainly has nothing to do with it.
But, wouldn’t Midler pay Gore to do the carbon offset thing? So, as far as we know, a whole bunch of short driveways belonging to poorer people in the Islands have a bunch of unwanted trees, thus stifling their economies and thereby multiplying the effects of the carbon offset.
I wonder how many temporary guest workers were involved with that enterprise? I’m having trouble picturing Miss M. out there working the Husqvarna…
Plus–she’s singlehandedly ruined at least one Tom Waits album.
If ‘her foundation’ buys vacant lots in NY and redevelops them as gardens, she’s fibbing when she claims she didn’t know about need for permits.
Liberal busybodies since the 60s have vastly succeeded in a campaign to force permits on private property owners, with all the bureaucracy and hearings and extortional payoffs the owners must comply with. She can’t very well claim to be an ‘environmentalist’ without knowlege of that campaign, being such a busybody herself.
Oh, but she’s a celebrity. The environmental permit raj was to be imposed on capitalists, not sing-song girls…
In fairness to Ms. Midler, she did buy some 1,400 acres of land on Kauai from the Amfac Sugar Company in 1999 to keep it away from the developers. Said land is in a pretty good location, too (along the Coconut Coast near the base of Sleeping Giant Mountain). She’s been planting native trees there as well.
In fairness to Ms. Midler, she did buy some 1,400 acres of land on Kauai from the Amfac Sugar Company in 1999 to keep it away from the developers. Said land is in a pretty good location, too (along the Coconut Coast near the base of Sleeping Giant Mountain). She’s been planting native trees there as well.
In fairness to Ms. Midler, she did buy some 1,400 acres of land on Kauai from the Amfac Sugar Company in 1999 to keep it away from the developers. Said land is in a pretty good location, too (along the Coconut Coast near the base of Sleeping Giant Mountain). She’s been planting native trees there as well.
Hawaii is an island archipelago, formed by volcanic action, so all of it’s fauna and flora either arrived by wind, wave, or wing; or by human action. Exactly what constitutes a ‘native’ species is a little iffy. The first human settlers arrives sometime between 300AD and 1000AD.
Clear cutting a patch of land is not the way to protect native species. One, you might take down native trees when you cut, and two, native animals might just be living in or on non-native trees.
I think Midler got caught with her hand in the cookie jar, and is making up excuses.
OT: just seeing the new format, could a preview button be added back in, please?
i was the absolute worst fire fighter in montana in the early sixties.
however:
the trees that i planted in the reforesting program (600 a day for three weeks each year) are now big enough for selective harvesting for lumber for HOUSES.
the liberals have their lawns mowed don’t they?
WHATS’ THE DIFFERENCE.
C
i was the absolute worst fire fighter in montana in the early sixties.
however:
the trees that i planted in the reforesting program (600 a day for three weeks each year) are now big enough for selective harvesting for lumber for HOUSES.
the liberals have their lawns mowed don’t they?
WHATS’ THE DIFFERENCE.
C
Sorry for the triple post, it must have something to do with the new format.
The University of Hawaii has defined what is “native”, list here:
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/FACULTY/CARR/natives.htm
One of the last strongholds of Native Hawaiian flora and fauna is uphill from Bette’s land, in the remote Alakai Swamp:
http://starbulletin.com/97/01/02/news/story4.html
Posted by Teresa | August 22, 2007 6:26 AM
They provide shade and a nice place to relax for older folks and some grass to play in for little kids.
Hard for me to see how that is a bad thing.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
It’s when they turn around and lay out extortionist fines against others, or even block them for clearing a piece of land so it can be used for the purpose it was purchased for – and even forcing the owners to build game reserves for non-native plants and animals displaced by their human endeaveors.
She could have had all those trees “REPLANTED” instead of destroyed.
Personally, I don’t care – people can plant new trees – I hate the Liberals telling us how to live our lives based on their fake, false junk science, just so their dictatorial powermongering can have a “justifiable excuse” of “pseudo-righteousness”.