Subjects

Active cases

Closed cases

Wall of Shame

Please inform the webmaster of any broken links!

Sites in Need of Protection

Trail of Tears and marker arborglyphs, Forsyth Co. GA

A Rundown

Photos of the trees

The Initial Predicament of the Trees
History of the Trail of Tears Trees
The May 29th Meeting with the Forsyth Planning Committee
After the Planning Committee Meeting
The Forsyth News and shoddy journalism
EPD Violations
Edward Reynolds response to the Forsyth News and addresses
Atlanta Journal Constitution Article on the trees
June 26th Planning Commission Meeting outcome

EPD Violations

The developer is planning to build a subdivision of 44 homes with a future phase planned earlier. A creek runs through the property and there is a 25 foot buffer around it for EPD purposes. It was initially believed the tree was outside the 25 foot buffer, but it turns out that it was within it. The removal of the tree was a violation of the buffer area, but the Army Corps of Engineeers say they haven't the manpower or time to concern themselves in a matter involving one tree.

The tree which may or may not be still standing is also within 25 feet of a creek.

Edward Reynolds' Response to the Forsyth News

IBGAG has never stated the carvings are authentic. What IBGAG sought was a valid appraisal of the carvings and the age of the fallen tree, something which has been fought every step of the way. IBGAG has no interest in the preservation of a carvings that are not authentic. Why would we? What began as perhaps not a simple matter, but one that could or should have been, has become convoluted in the extreme. Why?

The following is Edward Reynolds' letter to the Forsyth News:

We ask that Tsali Thurman be allowed to examine the tree in place. Simple request. Far from the lengths that these folks have taken to keep any one who would really know what to look for from doing just that. The tree is of no value now. It has been removed and the site disturbed.

Another interesting twist on this is that if you will look at the pictures the tree is immediately next to a creek/stream. It is a violation of EPD rules to disturb the vegetation within 25' of a water course. It does not mater if the vegetation is standing or fallen. No disturbances period.

When this was reported to them they said they did not have the manpower to deal with it. So much for enforcing the law.

Another interesting thing to understand here is that they cut this tree down in the afternoon, and by breakfast next mourning they had already been turned down by Reinhardt College. The article in the Forsyth paper states the following:

The statement adds that Heard contacted officials with the Native American museum at Reinhardt College who determined "the carvings were not associated with Native Americans."

The statement continues: "The carvings were very likely made in recent times by local children. The tree trunk will be protected for a reasonable period of time to allow for any preservation deemed appropriate."

Now, how probable that a qualified person looked at these trees in that short of a time period and determined the above. Note that the attorney, Phill Bettis, does not give the name of the supposed person that looked at these trees. A detail that does not go unnoticed by me. He also contradicts the statements of County Arborist Van Moore, when he says the following:

"An analysis of tree rings has determined this tree is less than 125 years old."

Now we know the tree fell over 40 years ago, so the math says the tree could have been as old as 165 years old.

Now Moore state he examined a section 4.5 feet off of the ground, when to get an accurate count, one would have to count the rings at the base of the tree, according to sources within the US. Forestry Service. I would put forth that Mr Moore does not know as much about trees as he claims in the article.

Additionally, one has to question why they are preserving the tree if what they say is true. We will be watching very closely to see if the tree is put up for sale as an artifact, after this effort to say that it is not real.

One has to question how much disregard the Historical Society President of Forsyth has of Cultural artifacts when she is quoted in the article as saying:

Historical Society President Annette Bramblett said, "We're not interested because the tree isn't old enough to contain authentic carvings. We already have enough cute trees, we don't need another one."

I would also point out that the land owner has already violated the conditions set forth by the Forsyth County Department of Planning and Development I would also point out that the land owner has already violated the conditions set forth by the by not following all EPD guidelines and they should remove their approval based on this.

home : mission : updates : sites : learn : action : links : contact