A First

That is the knife's edge we balance on. We try to convince our clients where possible to keep the tree. It is with regret that a removal goes forward.

As the pictures of the trees in question in the thread have shown us. We saw the real issue and very quickly felt it appropriate to remove these trees.
 
Wether a tree will crash thru a house or not depends alot on how it hits the house. If it hits between the rafters (instead of across them), make a huge difference. I have taken down a white ok that uprooted and fell againts a pavalion 6 feet away (plus rested some on a neighboring spruce tree), and it only did minor damage. Also removed a E. White pine log form a house roof about 20" in diameter. This tree snapped off about roof level and fell acroos the rafters. It also did only minor damage (least noticable)...it did screw up the first rafter some I think.

But also had a 3' dbh black oak uproot, from behind and to the side, and totally destroy a office, bathroom and porch of a house (did not hit the main roof line, was kinda like a inclosed porch).

PS- dropping trees onto a demo house is quite fun....but feels weird :)
 
Crikey things have moved a pace since I went to work today, Skew your pictures are worth a thousand words, I'd probably recommend removal too based on the proximty and the damage that the root plate has experienced(only probably mind you!)but I'd still be talking to the client (as I'm sure you have) about what their concerns are in relation to assessable risk from these trees. I have helped clients retain trees as close as the ones you show granted without the root damage that seems inevitable given the construction works.

Climbhightree made a point about perhaps not wanting such a tree over his house and this is often how people feel with large trees over them, but how we assess the risk in such trees as Arborists is crucial to the decisions clients end up making. I'm not sure the question is about value but rather about risk, any tree is not more valuable than a human life, but to say that a tree is going to or not going to take a life is a statement that no Arborist can make. We cannot tell clients that treeA is safe and treeB is not, we can only tell them that the assessed risk from treeA is X compared to treeb Y compared to the risks that they acept in their everyday lives.

Please lets not get ourselves into this trap of calling trees safe, there is risk associated with all trees in public space, its how much risk people/clients are prepared to accept and the options we provide to them in order to better manage and control that risk.

Treehumper, we've done that experiment in the State forest in Halifax Nth Queensland (but not with a demo house..I want to try that climbhightree!)and yes there is a critical distance from a tree of specified height that gives you maximum impact force, simple physics the tree must generate enough momentum to cause such significant damage, and yes many other variables would be critical construction methods and materials canopy and branching structure hieght of the building etc...

mrtree, I don't think it comes down to having no thought for the tree, or rather to what benefits the tree provides our environment and us, its value in other words...maybe we should start another thread on the value of trees including the value of decaying, failing ancient trees (one of my pet loves). If we can help raise awareness in our clients of those values and take that into consideration when it comes to deciding on the mitigation of risk then it would be much better for all (trees, environment and people)
 
Tree #1 is now killed. I was able to cut and chuck every thing. Unfortunatlelty my helper shockley who is a guide on the grand canyon knew our bar tender at the last dollar sallooon and it looks like it will be a delayed start in the morning. It's o.k. though there are big flakes falling now. Tommorrow middle spruce. from quick ring count off of 12' stump tree apears to be about 55 years old. What a great thread.Thanks for all in put.
 
The "value" of the tree may simply be that it is alive, and created by God if you believe in God. Maybe all things have a right to be. A question to contemplate.
 
ok if we're gonna get religious here's the end of my patrick henry piece, titled "Give trees mitigation or give trees death". It is amazing how many people in the usa do not know patrick henry. But them I was amazed that people did not recognize Pink Floyd. Anyway,

"Armed with basic knowledge and their own experience and common sense, inspectors can **adopt** the owner’s mindset on acceptable levels of risk and deliver a tree care program that mitigates risk while increasing the tree resource. In essence, Tree Risk Management and Plant Health Care are really the same thing. Monitoring and diagnosis take vigilance. Responding to tree health and safety issues requires action. For the arborist and the owner to both accept that you cannot mitigate tree risk by tree removal alone, requires bravery. The words of Patrick Henry again apply to tree care: “We are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power... the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.”

I caught some crap and rightly so about that word "adopt" because that says the assessor is not independent. I really meant to say "adapt", which would keep the arborist's judgment separate from the owner's values while considering them. What a difference a letter makes. Whether and how much we should consider what the client values is an ongoing debate. Best to err on the side of independence imo.

Cutting trees down in the snow--I'll think about that while I'm pruning in my Tshirt today.
 
Never should an arborist state that a tree is safe, so says my arbor sci teacher (a forensic accident investigator/consultant). He also said that all urban trees or at least the vast majority of the mature ones are basketcases. So how do we protect the urban forest while also managing the risk?
 
Doesn't the term Arboriculture suggest the possiblity of harvesting trees and replacing them. After al it's not called aboriwild.
Once again the gods were displeased with our actions. The wind blew like a frieght train today and didn't even get tree 2 stripped. We are pulling off for now if it stinks tomorrow. But get this- now the local "dissenter" called and wants to work on the job. I don't quite under stand his view on this..
 
I share your frustration treehumper, I qess it all depends on your place in your local community and how your local authority/council have approached the management of municipal trees. As Arborists we can provide a unique insight to town planners with regards management options for their trees that they may never have considered, or if they did felt that there was no way they could present such an approach ina way to garner wide support.

I would totally agree with your teacher that urban trees face a very hard and tortured existance in general, but there are many examples around the world of towns, cities and municipalities that have grasped the nettle and made the hard decisions to find themselves now in a position envied by others...a lot of the examples I'm thinking of are in Canada and the US.

Always remember the management of risk from trees is no different to the management of risk in any other area of our lives, all of us....in fact the risk posed by trees is far less than the risks we all seem perfectly prepared to accept (as a society) from smoking, high speed transportation, resource consunption etc... The fear that seems to dominate our clients minds when it comes to trees relates more IMO to a general misunderstanding of the biology of trees and the actual numbers of serious problems caused by tree failures. It doesn't make it any less real for the individual client and doesn't decrease the emotional drive behind their desire to control the percieved threat to life and limb, but we must be able to explain to clioents the actual nature of the risk they pecieve to be so great, and to compare it to the numerous risks they shrug off every single day of their lives.
 
I suppose that part of our problem stems from the teachings of people like your teacher. NO tree is safe is really wrong, it creates fear and leads to removal of lots of trees that don't need to be. Firstly trees from seedlings through middle age are very like to be safe and not likely to cause any damage. Think about a 20 year of ornamental tree in the landscape, even if it collapses what damage is done? Likely little or none.

One of the reasons your teacher (and others) says to say no tree is safe is the fear of lawsuits. Canada is not suit crazy like US but is going that way. If we are fearful as experts of saying a tree is safe, imagine how that affects the public. Further your teacher has repeatedly stated thoughts such as most urban trees are a basket case. Sort of goes to teaching that tree are a problem inheriently. Does little to inspire people.

As trees age the defects will increase and grow in size, thus an obvious thought is to have a strong replanting program. Clearly 1 to 1 cut and plant is not enough.

Skew if you do not understand his views why don't you ask him. I for one would be interested in what he says.
 
His point exactly. Beware the liability issue as a consultant. If you put forth an "expert" opinion then you stand to be liable. It's a matter of semantics. Don't say it's safe, say it's a low risk etc....

He was talking specifically about mature older trees. Take a walk down any street in Toronto and you can see what he's talking about.

The problem for any expert asked to evaluate anything is that they will be held to account legally if anything should fail. Therefore it's better to err on the side of caution. It is our culture to blame and hold someone or something responsible.

Replanting programs should be 3-1 at the least.
 
Don't think that working as a consultant is the only time you can be held liable. Any time you speak about a tree, even if you are not paid and you are speaking in generalaties you can be held liable. I found this out.

If you walk down any street in Toronto you are more likely to be killed or injured by a car than a tree. As a society we do not put risk into prespective, how many people per year are killed by trees? In Ontario a couple, upto maybe 10 per year; last year a couple loggers, a couple of campers, a child at Royal Botanical Gardens, and I am sure a do-it-yourselfer or two. In the majority of cases these are preventable accidents and have nothing to do with the tree, the child and campers being the exception. I would also guess that more tree workers are injured and killed by trees than people on the streets. Treehumper think about those people you know who have had a tree worker killed. I bet you can think of one who is an acknowledged expert. So if does prove that even the best gets caught and saying no tree is safe maybe the only way to proect our own butts, but sacrifice the planet. Lawyers are a great bunch.
 
Look for me the point to be made is this, when asked if tree A is safe, my response is 'yes and no', then to turn the question around and ask is your car safe? Was driving here to inpsect the tree safe? Is drinking beer in a place where people smoke safe? We all, every one of us accept different levels of risk in our daily lives, every single client you have, even the ones who stop you in your walk donw the street in Toronto, accept levels of risk far greater than the risk in nearly all the trees they are likely to meet in person (allowing for the few trees that are really fecked) So no I never ever say tree A is safe, and not because I want to cover my arse,(though I accept this is a perfectly reasonable defence strategy) but because no natural system is "safe" persay, they will all fail under certain circumstances, and even the best of us with the most expensive technology cannot 100% predict in every tree where failure will occur.

Once you can bring your clients to realise that, you can then talk about just what assessable risk is present in their tree, explaining what your assessment is based on, educating them all the time. Returning somewhat to the origninal thread, if had clients with trees that they care about in much closer locations than the ones that have been removed, they were made aware of the assessable risks fromt hose trees and provided with management options that did not compromise the health of the trees to the point where they had to be removed. I've worked with clients who have removed their gutters rather than have the proble of leaf fall on the roof rusting out those gutters, and in the same day met people who wanted trees lopped and topped to prevent leaf fall onto their roofs!!

Mrtree you're right in every country the stats for deaths directly relating to tree failure would be well below 10 per annum, yet our clients are continually alarmed with the onset of the storm season about the risk of tree A crashing through their house, falling on their car, or creating havoc in some other insidious way..they're out to get us you know!
 
Hey Skew!

It's good to see your humble post started such a firestorm of feisty arbor-debate!

I hope you get a break in the storm to chop those "monsters" down.


For the record, I got what you said in the first couple of posts.

Good debate though. wordy.
 
I really think part of our (humans/society) problem is that since the 1800's we have set industralization and the pursuit of money beyond all other concerns. There are numerous things to consider such as we have a systems based on making profits from non-renewable resources and we put these manmade goods ahead of nature. What it boils down to is that as an arborist who loves trees and nature you are often fighting a culture that looks at trees as a commidty that might damage a precious purchased product. You are expected to assess risk better than other professionals. In many cases when a tree fails, other failures occur (shingles, antenneas, windows, steep denuded slopes etc.), caused by the same weather, yet trees and arborists are held to an unreasonable standard.
 
I agree with your sentiment mrtree, but I do feel we can make a difference, in fact my own experience suggests that is so. Its not easy and sure isn't quick but gradually more and more clients from very diverse backgrounds are coming around to see the many advantages of having qualified Arb people advise them about their tree management and crucially coming around to viewing their trees as assets (which none of them did before) and accepting that like any other asset they can depreciate, and require maintenance.
Trust me when I say that wtihout the work done by many other Arborists in USA and UK I would not be still doing this, and I'm not doing it for the money (LOL) through share our experiences and thrashing out elements of why we do our work one way or another way we are making each other better at our vocation...well I think so anyway
 
[ QUOTE ]

The problem for any expert asked to evaluate anything is that they will be held to account legally if anything should fail. Therefore it's better to err on the side of caution.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't agree with this. It's better not to err at all. I run into consultants--some govt agents some not--who give a kneejerk recommendation to remove, or say it's got maybe 5 years in it, etc., without taking a close enough look to know wtf they are talking about. That is wrong--they should do the job right or shut up.

After the risk of tree failure and the risk of that failure to people and property are assessed, ways of managing the risk must be discussed. The arborist describes for the owner all the reasonable ways of lowering that risk to a level that the owner is willing to accept. At this point, tree risk assessment transitions into tree risk management. The answer may be as simple as removing a dead branch or reducing a sprawling limb. It is essential to consider the long-range effects of the complete removal of living limbs and trees. Pruning, cabling and other arboricultural treatments are not perfect or zero-maintenance solutions, but neither is removal.

Without the support provided by the missing tree or limb, adjacent trees and limbs will be on the “edge”, newly exposed to the forces of nature. Some of these forces are as subtle as sunshine, which can kill bark by scalding. The balance of the tree or grove will be altered, and they will react to stresses in new and possibly unanticipated ways. Removing large limbs also can result in the decay and failure of the parent branch or stem. Arborists sometimes automatically recommend removal in the hopes of protecting themselves from liability, but in fact, removal of trees and limbs can lead to an unanticipated increase in risk and liability.

"the emotional drive behind their desire to control the percieved threat to life and limb"

I agree, this is what we must fight to understand and change.
 
I agree with all that has been said but the reality is that any professional consultant in ANY field or discipline will qualify their opinion. Whether it is security or trees or an engineered structure. I attended a computer industry lecture on security where the concept of Time-based security was presented. It was interesting to learn that every security system is rated on the basis of how long it will take to breach it. take a look at any vault. Nothing is secure, some just take longer to get through...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom