DEAR EDITOR:

Owning a Christmas tree is unanimously recognized as very pleasant and delightful; what is neither pleasant nor delightful is the sectarian violence between types of conifers (cone-bearing trees) that is ubiquitous at this time of year. I wish I could claim that I have always been innocent in this dreadful conflict, but only until recently have I also been to blame for the unfortunate circumstances surrounding false superiority of classes of conifers. While my ways have been mended my epiphany did not come to me in a Dickensian three spirits sort of way, rather, only after getting to know a conifer that I myself had deemed “less-than”, did I realize I have been dead wrong when it comes to the Christmas tree debate.

Well this year I did the unthinkable, I chose a scotch pine. If I had been told in my youth that one day I would choose a scotch pine as my Christmas tree I would’ve said you’re poorly versed in your conifers and proceeded to ruthlessly deride the qualities of the scotch pine. Such a horrible attitude, and this is precisely what perpetuates the absurd and unfounded clashes between the conifers.

Blue spruce, while spikey, are beautiful; fraser fir while soft, tend to wilt; and scotch pine, while large-needled, are reliably conical. These are only a few examples of conifers that are used; Canaan fir, Norway spruce, Austrian pine, whatever your choice may be, my point is this: Every single tree has its assets, and every single tree has its flaws. Instead of categorizing trees based on their species, we should judge the tree based on its individuality. In doing so we will all experience a more joyous holiday season surrounded by the tranquility of a conifer that nature provides.

JEREMY SANFREY

New Waterford