The story of the Tree That Owns Itself is widely known and is almost always presented as fact. Only one person—the anonymous author of "Deeded to Itself"—has ever claimed to have seen Jackson's deed to the tree. Most writers acknowledge that the deed is lost or no longer exists—if in fact it ever did exist. Such a deed would have no legal effect. Under common law, the recipient of a piece of property must have the legal capacity to receive it, and the property must be delivered to—and accepted by—the recipient.[6] Both are impossible for a tree to do, as it isn't a legal person.

[...]

"However defective this title may be in law, the public recognized it."[11] In that spirit, it is the stated position of the Athens-Clarke County Unified Government that the tree, in spite of the law, does indeed own itself.[12] It is the policy of the city of Athens to maintain it as a public street tree.[13]

[...]

Although the story of the Tree That Owns Itself is more legend than history, the tree has become, along with the University Arch and the Double-Barreled Cannon, one of the most recognized and well-loved symbols of Athens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself

In reality, the tree is not protected by law, but by the will of the people. Kind of symbolic if you ask me.

and everyone just went with it.

Technically, how all law really works at its core.

The trees owned the lands until the humans took it from them.

I do like the info, I'm failing to see the science aspect, and even the meme aspect of this post. But I'm in the 'microblog doesn't equal meme' camp.

when the people who make the rules say "Sorry, the rules are the rules, there's nothing we can do" remember that they literally gave a tree human rights just because they felt like it.

Are they sure the original Tree that Owned Itself was the mother of the Son of the Tree that owned itself? Or did some whore squirrel just deposit the acorn near the stump?

Have they done a DNA test to confirm that the son has a legal stake in the property?

Now the son is young, dumb, and full of pollen. He's gotta be spreading it as far as the wind will take it. What will happen when he inevitably dies and his estate has to be settled??

A tree owning itself and it's a white oak tree, who would have guessed. You can be victim of specicism and still a white supremacist. Think about it.

wait so, can i just deed the title of my land to my land upon my death? Is that something i can just fucking do?

I don't think it's crazy at all to protect trees. We need them. What baffles me is how much we rely on them and still cut whole swaths of them down anyway without a thought.

Trees now have more rights than women in the State of Texas

Okay curious question. There's a legal movement arguing that nature should be protected by law/be considered when undertaking things that might affect it (esp. resource development).

Does anybody with any legal knowledge know if this would create some kind of legal precedent? Obviously it's not enshrined in written law, but a tree that owns itself (even by mutual agreement) seems to suggest it's somewhat plausible, and it's not like laws always make sense lol. Or am I just reading too much into this?

Tree law continues to be the wildest

Emotionally sensitive people make life worth living