I find this article from the Baton Rouge Advocate about an old oak being cut down in Baton Rouge disturbing on two counts: 1) what landowner would cut a majestic oak from his or her property if it wasn't somehow a threat or a hindrance, and 2) what gives these progressive thinkers in Baton Rouge the nerve to think they should be able to tell this guy what he can do with a tree on his property? Perhaps if the tree had received some sort of official designation before the purchase of the property it might be acceptable, but not some retroactive designation. I'd still like to hear the viewpoint of the tree's owner. Maybe he wants to sell or develop the lot. I sure hope it wasn't pure cussedness. That would be a terrible loss.