Nobody is talking about cutting down trees that were there during the battle. ("The park service plans to make the landscape look like 1863 ..."
The park service may not be talking about cutting down trees present at the time of the battle, but they have done it.
(1) Behind the Wentz house foundation ruins (by the Peach Orchard, one of the sites of the second day's fighting), the park service cut down a massive, healthy looking shade tree that had to be several hundred years old. It was the only shade tree in the area (the peach trees in the orchard are small trees, periodically replaced so they will keep bearing fruit).
We heard from someone who works for the park service that it was "a mistake" to cut down the massive old shade tree. We wonder about that -- the park just planted seedlings for another orchard at the same site, and we wonder if they cut down the large old tree because its shade would have prevented the new seedlings from growing.
(2) Environmentalists examined the rings and cores of several trees cut down behind the Cordori farm, and said some trees were present at the time of the battle.
(3) The park service plans to cut down thousands of trees. Some of the trees they've already cut down were massive. We've walked through a forest they plan to cut later this year and some massive trees were not marked with the "do not cut" tape. The park service looks at old photos and old maps, but those maps and photos don't show every tree.
(4) Why is the park service planting new tiny trees by monuments such as the Father Corby monument -- trees that were not there at the time of the battle -- yet cutting down trees over a hundred years old near monuments in areas like Devil's Den -- small old trees like cedars that provide shade and do not interfere with understanding of the terrain?