Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees Witho

Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

[ QUOTE ]
Like it or not the ordinance exists and because it's enforced will be on the minds of those it's designed to deter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is what it is right????

Just because it is, doesn't make it right.

The worst part of the whole thing is some dim wit has a job just to ride around and look for this crap. Just how much does that cost the tax payers???? muni arbos suck the left wing nut.
 
Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

[ QUOTE ]
Just how much does that cost the tax payers????

[/ QUOTE ]A lot more than necessary, thanks to hack treecudders.
 
Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

[ QUOTE ]

Is what it is right????



The worst part of the whole thing is some dim wit has a job just to ride around and look for this crap. Just how much does that cost the tax payers???? muni arbos suck the left wing nut.

[/ QUOTE ]

It costs the taxpayers of Boston about 70k before overtime
tongue.gif



I think its hilarious how you carry on on this site like you're gods gift to tree work...you're a moron
 
Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

blush.gif
owned.gif


Sad thing is, the fines are so avoidable.

I wonder what that Glendale contractor is doing now: more of the same $3k-top-and-run game?

Nick, you gotta be the private tree guy eye on this one--track down the rest of the story!
bigeyes.gif
 
Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

[ QUOTE ]
I think its hilarious how you carry on on this site like you're gods gift to tree work...you're a moron

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh the love. Funny I never recall posting anything about being gods gift. Gods Gifts would be your state champs right??? I'm just an ave joe, prob is I have opions that don't fall suit with the lump some of TBers.

70k wow! glad to see some of you muni guys can make a living. I always thought, should say see grossly overweight bucket riders looking for easy work and bennies, pay was always crap. You must be managment.
 
Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

[ QUOTE ]
they are more rarely applied here; attached.

[/ QUOTE ]

The attached article is an interesting case. While we're nitpicking, did you notice that the arborist pictured doing restoration pruning is tied in without a false crotch or other suitable cambium saver?
 
Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

Is there a regulation or rule stating false crotches MUST be used? The articles cited have been major regulation breaking cases. Just comparing nitpicking apples to nitpicking apples!
 
Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

[ QUOTE ]
While we're nitpicking, did you notice that the arborist pictured doing restoration pruning is tied in without a false crotch or other suitable cambium saver?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, I notice that--did you notice the condition of the bark on those 30-40 year old willow oaks? Pretty tough stuff--I don't consider the cambium to be vulnerable in that case.

the guy is my sub and we do use ropesavers when bark condition warrants it. I support California's move to make ropesavers a mandatory part of their treeworker cert. I'm trying to make them default SOP in my own work but on these bushy trees they did not fit for us.

re nitpicking, let's be clear on the difference between obvious substandard/tree-damaging/illegal work and standard work with subtle variations on the road to perfection. It's like: Accuracy is needed, but Precision is a goal.

Or like Warren Zevon put it:

All alone on the road to perfection,
At the inspection booth they tried to discourage me.
You can believe what you want; that'll never change it.

You'll have to come around eventually,
You'll be looking for the next best thing...
I appreciate the best; I'm settling for less,
I'm looking for the next best thing...
 
Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

I can't argue with Zevon! The goal you/we are all driving towards is a better application of the art of arboriculture. As long as there is a basis in sound science, then the standard of our art will progress. For anyone who has done it, restoration pruning is something that requires a certain amount of deliberation and care, and I'm sure anyone who would take the time to think about how to restore the crown of a tree that has suffered from improper pruning would have enough sense to weigh the potential of whether or not to use a cambium saver. So I'll bite that it may not have been necessary, but I think its time we were consistent when we call out the practices of others which we think unfit. It is my experience that very few trees are unaffected by direct rope contact, especially if the climber makes any quick descents. In addition to the obvious friction damage, is it not the case that concern over the use of a cambium saver also includes the assertion that the compression of the bark in the cambium from systems without a suitable saver represents a real potential for damage? So, if we are calling a spade a spade, shouldn't we be as concerned over the conscious neglect of said systems as we are over the neglect of a three step cut?

Two cents dude, don't get twisted too much over this...I think we are both on the same team
friday.gif
 
Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

[ QUOTE ]
I can't argue with Zevon! ...I think we are both on the same team
friday.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

cool.gif
cool.gif


Thanks for pointing out the usefulness of ropesavers. Posting pics on forums or in articles or in brochures will welcome an increasing level of scrutiny, and the picture-taker has to welcome it all.

chance of rapid descent from that bushy tree and risk of cambium damage is nearly nil, but still...

If you believe that ropesavers are so useable and useful, maybe you will be suggesting to your ANSI rep a wording change.
wink.gif
 
Re: Homeowners Fined $347,000 For Trimming Trees W

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Like it or not the ordinance exists and because it's enforced will be on the minds of those it's designed to deter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is what it is right????

Just because it is, doesn't make it right.

The worst part of the whole thing is some dim wit has a job just to ride around and look for this crap. Just how much does that cost the tax payers???? muni arbos suck the left wing nut.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was right. It is what it is until someone with the authority to change it does so. In the meantime, we have to work within the bounds or be willing to suffer the consequences.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence and where a "professional" is employed to perform a task it is either failure to follow the regs is either negligence or incompetence.

If you don't abide by the law are you prepared to pay or do you whine that it's not fair when caught?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom