Going too far?

My father also sent me this link... He is thinking too much government. I think it is like stopping animal abuse. Disfiguring a tree is not ok. Private property - do what you may, but these trees were city controlled?
 
How can a Crape Mrytle be dangerous if improperly pruned? It will produce too many flowers on new wood? Silly.
 
why should churches get a free pass? I admit it sounds pretty absurd to crack down on crape topping, but if that is their policy, then it should be applied to everyone equally.

Cities pass protection ordinances because they know tree contribute infrastructure services that they will have to provide mechanically if the trees are gone. Your private property affects our universal environment. This argument will probably never be completely settled for everyone, but you have to accept the rule of law if you want to live in society. Don't like preservation ords? Elect someone who will change the law or move somewhere without them.
 
we need this where i live. the fricking state tops trees here yet they have laws that say you'l get fined for topping a tree. WTF?
furious3.gif
flag_bs.gif
 
A tree ordinance is required for the Tree City designation. The idea behind that is that trees and canopy are preserved. So being fined for topping or over pruning goes with living in a Tree City.
The last thing I did before leaving the Hillsborough Tree Board was to force a local market to replace five Tuscaroras they topped. We had published an article in the local news about crape topping just a month before.
If people hired arborists to prune rather than grabbing the first cheapest guy with loppers then it wouldnt be an issue.
If people won't do it based on their integrity, then the regulstors get to play ball. In this country some people think anything they can get away with is fair game... those people CREATE regulation.
 
"In this country some people think anything they can get away with is fair game... those people CREATE regulation."

Well Said!
 
Gotta start somewhere. It would be good to see the annual "trimming" of so many trees and shrubs done with care and to "proper" standards. Looks to me like the man that did the trimming just didn't know any better.

Problem is, in some cultures, repeated heading is not considered improper. Copicing, pollarding. What about topiary? What about regulating public and private property where people sever roots? Flush cutting? What about restoration work? (Guy - any thoughts on how you would fight the fine for some of the cuts to nodes that are not "1/3rd"?)What do we do about hebe shaped square and boxwood shaped round?

Maybe we should also fine people with bad haircuts. I suppose if we go there we could also require the ugly people to wear paper bags or risk receiving a fine.

See what I mean.
 
I just read this at a different news source. I was going to post it here... But, Eric got it first.
bigcry.gif


I'm on the fence.

I think the city needs to enforce their ordinances.

Yet, if the city knew that the church topped their trees annually, for all these years, and never asked them if they were aware of the ordinance, then I think they could have given them a warning.
 
Garbage... though I do not work on the crepe, you can see fromt he size of those trees, they are not going to be a threat to anyone or anything.. they could be pruned to develop an acceptable structure in the future.. Probably a better solution than replanting..

There is so much grey area in pruning scenarios.. who is to say what is improper pruning??? I also think you;d have to show that the trees posed a significant threat before the private property rights could be outweighed.. Unconsitutional.. the constitution is the rule of law, no matter what some city beaurocrats say.. If I was a judge, I'd throw that fine out in 5 minutes..

I think a warning would have been in order...
 
Education would go a long way to helping evolve practices. However, as Blinky pointed out, those that demand the right to do whatever they want regardless of how it impacts others drive the need to regulate.

As for trees being private property, I disagree. A tree on your property really is creates stewardship not ownership. There is enough data to support this concept simply by looking at the communal benefits derived from the forest canopy and root systems that often extend beyond man made boundaries.

This example may have been heavy handed but have they reported on the times where it would be deemed as entirely insufficient considering the damage done by the violators?


Toronto suffered several situations where property owners destroyed stands of trees with no justification. Ultimately it led to an outcry that drove the city to accelerate the implementation of stricter tree bylaws that protect all trees whether they were on public or private property.

We as arborists need to support these ordinances and provide the education that will help those who lack proper training and knowledge acquire it.
 
I guess I don't see why flushing the stems off at the ground wouldn't be an acceptable solution. The plant returns to it's natural form and the church does not have to pay for replacement.
 
Yes I think the city went too far IMO. Mainly for the species and time intervals between trimming.

I am all for proper pruning, but crepes require a different perspective when trimming. And I have trimmed quite a few myself.
 
this is a good opportunity for an arborist to come in and propose restorative pruning and maybe extra planting as an alternative to replacement (which on crepes would indeed be excessive). like the attached story from 2 hours away.

O and yes I gotta go find this National Horticulture Board; sounds impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom