the guy said...

[ QUOTE ]
"Guy I do believe trees can be too large and pose unacceptable risk"

Risk of failing...where? what part of the tree?

<font color="red"> The woody parts! </font>



"The possible negative outcome in terms of property damage and loss of human life far outweighs its' benefits."

You could say that about any tree, as more than one poster on this thread already has. Do you agree with them?
<font color="red"> I'm not saying that about any tree, I'm saying it about this one. Do you not see the potential risk of a tree of this mass over a house Vs. trees with 1/10 of this mass? </font>


"There should be a separate type of insurance written for arborist that assure that such a tree is 'safe'. Homeowners insurance too needs some modification for trees this large over a residence."

How would such riders work; i don't follow.
<font color="red"> I believe lumping the risk posed by trees of this mass with the trees found at most residences is a disservice to the majority of homeowners purchasing insurance. </font>


"IMO, living under this tree is like living under a huge fly swatter!"

Yes its size may make us feel insignificant, but we are not flies; we are supposed to be Homo sapiens sapiens, systematially assessing facts, instead of flying from fear of size. Speaking of size, are you going strictly on "gut" reaction?
confused.gif



<font color="red"> Guy even an average person on the street can see the huge potential for property damage and bodily harm. We both love trees but your blindness to the threats huge trees present to people and property is more emotional than rational.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
 
"The woody parts!

need more detail--which woody parts.

"Do you not see the potential risk of a tree of this mass over a house Vs. trees with 1/10 of this mass?

Risk from what failure?

" I believe lumping the risk posed by trees of this mass with the trees found at most residences is a disservice to the majority of homeowners purchasing insurance. </font>

and how would this rider work? details needed. i get a lot of practice at this, tutoring highschoolers, same thing every time--explain yourself!

"your blindness to the threats huge trees present to people and property is more emotional than rational."

rational means reasoning, and i am asking you for reasons but instead of hearing them i just hear "That tree is too big" opinion.
icon11.gif
zzz.gif


would it be too big if the house were double the size? triple? irrelevant. To understand the landlord, "ask a few more key questions...dig to the root of their concern."

MC; page 40
 
if i had a pic id post it...maybe someone from Calgary AB could post one...

there is an enormous cottonwood growing along memorial trail in cowtown. every tree guy in the city has seen it and those lucky enough to have cared for it just love sharing that opportunity with others. its is roughly 100' tall, and being as its really 3 trees fused into 1, its got a HUGE circumference, dbh is like 10'. it on the fenceline of two neighbouring houses, and hangs over 3 houses, and 2 garages, three phase (A LOT of targets).

in the early 1900's this group of 'weeds' took hold of the dusty, harsh climate that is the Alberta foothills. it grew as did the trading post that was Calgary. it survived the great depression (and Calgary winters....huhghghg), all the while reaching for the sky, getting closer and closer. it watched as the valley bottom was transformed from floodplain to city centre, as towers were erected, as highways were built. in short as the City of Calgary was turned from windblown prairie to the landscape it is today.

today we can gaze at the magnificent natural architecture precisely because people recognized not only the breadth of Calgary history that it's lifetime spans, but the benefits both aesthetic and economic, that it provides.

clearly they were wrong, as you 'arborists' are indicating
crazy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
"The woody parts!

need more detail--which woody parts.

"Do you not see the potential risk of a tree of this mass over a house Vs. trees with 1/10 of this mass?

Risk from what failure?

" I believe lumping the risk posed by trees of this mass with the trees found at most residences is a disservice to the majority of homeowners purchasing insurance. </font>

and how would this rider work? details needed. i get a lot of practice at this, tutoring highschoolers, same thing every time--explain yourself!

"your blindness to the threats huge trees present to people and property is more emotional than rational."

rational means reasoning, and i am asking you for reasons but instead of hearing them i just hear "That tree is too big" opinion.
icon11.gif
zzz.gif


would it be too big if the house were double the size? triple? irrelevant. To understand the landlord, "ask a few more key questions...dig to the root of their concern."

MC; page 40

[/ QUOTE ]

High winds or bad lighting could easily result in massive limb failure damaging the house and putting the people in it at high risk of injury or death. The landlord has stated that tenants are concerned.....they see the potential danger and it is not their imagination.
 
I've heard that cottonwoods can suck up a large amount of water with a heavy rain after drought, resulting in sometimes large limb drop. I worked on a large cottonwood, maybe only 4' DBH. It randomly had a large 18-20" trunk failure about 5' out from the main trunk. No wind, no recent rain. Just KAPOW!!!!!!!!! it snapped but was left dangling. IF it had free fallen and been over the rental house, it would have had significant structural damage.

The tree has had some large diameter leaders taken of the main trunk. Looks like bark inclusions, too.

Seems like a high probability of serious property damage. If I lived there, I might go for a hotel stay during a wind storm.
 
If you can postpone until the leaves are off, it would be a lot easier to see everything. For rigging this can be good as there is less weight, and bad, as there is less air resistance to falling tops.
 
I myself can't stand the statement, "the tree is too big".

Homeowners are usually the ones to say this.

I'm suprized to see arborist say this without seeing a defect or structural weakness.

what a shame...
 
this thread is dumb and full of fear. i think it should be culled like dead wood. this thread brings the tb down to ab.
 
[ QUOTE ]
this thread is dumb and full of fear. i think it should be culled like dead wood. this thread brings the tb down to ab.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about culling it like a large specimen tree that is known to fall apart when mature that is growing over a residence?
beerchug.gif
 
"High winds or bad lighting could easily result in massive limb failure&gt;"

And that risk is mitigated by pruning, cabling, lightning protection, branch removal, or finally tree removal, which comes last not first in the ISA manual and in proper practice, unless a dealbreaking defect is identified. "It's too big" is not a defect. I just condemned a big pecan, attached is the report.

"The landlord has stated that tenants are concerned"

I only read that the landlord had no tenants, which could be due to the interior being a snakepit. Even if tenants or landlord or neighbor or mailman has a concern about a tree, the arborist's job seems to be to list management options and let the owner decide. This is done during the estimate by estimating all those services, and referring to a pro who can do what your company does not do.
 
[ QUOTE ]


And that risk is mitigated by pruning, cabling, lightning protection, branch removal, or finally tree removal, which comes last not first in the ISA manual and in proper practice, unless a dealbreaking defect is identified. "It's too big" is not a defect. I just condemned a big pecan, attached is the report.



[/ QUOTE ]

I've been a certified arborist for 18 years and am well aware of the process.

This is a rental property and the landlord most likely is not going to go for the expense involved in the crown reduction, cabling and lightning protection needed to reduce the hazard this large cottonwood tree presents. Even if the preservation route were taken this tree would still present a hazard to people and property.

The best option is the removal of this cottonwood. If it were in a better location and at a more valuable property I would suggest preservation....but it's not. It is best to have it removed and replant new trees.
 
Dont know that Ive ever agreed with Dan before, but yes, a Cottonwood of that size right next to the house should be removed IMO. Eat that Treehuggers.
 
I don't think in almost 3 yrs of reading posts over at AS, here and elsewhere I have ever disagreed with Dan more than I do in this thread.

Some posts here display an astounding inability to understand the difference (and the fundemental importance in the difference) between what a hazard is, what a risk is, how we can confidently assess risk and what real limits exist to our ability to project into the future, how important it is to be honest about those limitations and the subjectivity of our pronouncements about what will or will not happen.

As Arborists we can provide some degree of informed advice to tree owners and managers, however when we decide to make definative pronouncements on the future structural integrity of a tree based on photographs I seriously question both the value of such statements and fail to fully understand the motivation.

Dan, I have no doubt you are basing your opinion on your personal experience of working, climbing and observing trees of this species, but such a generalised claim carries little weight for me. I have had too many years of hearing the same tales of widow making Eucs in urban areas used to justify absurd tree works that are wasteful of both the human resource and the green asset.

The tree that is the subject of this post may have significant structural defects, I have seen little evidence of that in the pics however. Documented systematic assessment is what should be carried out, before pronouncing on what many of you seem to hold as being an apriori fact.

Even if this tree does fit criteria that the majority of us would accept as justifying removal as the 'best' option, (and Dan I agree that the prejudicial attitude of the tree owner may well have more relevance in this than the actual state of affairs or possible management approaches) even if this tree fits those criteria neither this tree nor any other specific individual tree delivers support to the ridiculous assertion that the size alone should influence the outcome of our VTA.

Sadly our focus on failure reflects the disproportionate nature of our envolvement in tree management...clients are few and far betwen that call any of us out to assess their healthy trees.

Of course some of you will happily dismiss logic and stats that don't fit...I wish you no ill, and suspect that you will be earning greater income than I as you reduce, remove (and yes some of you replace) trees that require little or no intervention from any of us..however luckily they have terrifying defects that we all know result in thousands upon thousands of failures filling our streets and crushing our houses....my GOD the trees are out of control...someone call a tree doctor.
 
Good post Sean, well said.

I just watched a local tree company, one that I generally regard as 'not a hacker,' remove a 30" Pin Oak and a 24" Sugar Maple in front of a neighbor's house for no good reason. He just bought a crane, so this is how he'll pay for it, by NOT educating clients about 'green assets' as Sean said, but by asking few questions and simply cutting them down. Cha-ching.

He said himself that he bought it to keep up with another local company (definitely a hacker) that indiscriminately removes healthy trees. Sad.

-Tom
 
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think in almost 3 yrs of reading posts over at AS, here and elsewhere I have ever disagreed with Dan more than I do in this thread.

Some posts here display an astounding inability to understand the difference (and the fundemental importance in the difference) between what a hazard is, what a risk is, how we can confidently assess risk and what real limits exist to our ability to project into the future, how important it is to be honest about those limitations and the subjectivity of our pronouncements about what will or will not happen.

As Arborists we can provide some degree of informed advice to tree owners and managers, however when we decide to make definative pronouncements on the future structural integrity of a tree based on photographs I seriously question both the value of such statements and fail to fully understand the motivation.

Dan, I have no doubt you are basing your opinion on your personal experience of working, climbing and observing trees of this species, but such a generalised claim carries little weight for me. I have had too many years of hearing the same tales of widow making Eucs in urban areas used to justify absurd tree works that are wasteful of both the human resource and the green asset.

The tree that is the subject of this post may have significant structural defects, I have seen little evidence of that in the pics however. Documented systematic assessment is what should be carried out, before pronouncing on what many of you seem to hold as being an apriori fact.

Even if this tree does fit criteria that the majority of us would accept as justifying removal as the 'best' option, (and Dan I agree that the prejudicial attitude of the tree owner may well have more relevance in this than the actual state of affairs or possible management approaches) even if this tree fits those criteria neither this tree nor any other specific individual tree delivers support to the ridiculous assertion that the size alone should influence the outcome of our VTA.

Sadly our focus on failure reflects the disproportionate nature of our envolvement in tree management...clients are few and far betwen that call any of us out to assess their healthy trees.

Of course some of you will happily dismiss logic and stats that don't fit...I wish you no ill, and suspect that you will be earning greater income than I as you reduce, remove (and yes some of you replace) trees that require little or no intervention from any of us..however luckily they have terrifying defects that we all know result in thousands upon thousands of failures filling our streets and crushing our houses....my GOD the trees are out of control...someone call a tree doctor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great points Sean and I agree with you almost entirely.... but in this case considering the species, size and location this tree has grown from being an asset....to a liability.
 
I will say, perhaps there are species out there that just can't be trusted... ?

It's possible I guess.

There are no species in my area that I would view like this.

Many "tree guys", in my area would say bradford Callery Pears will fail no matter what, just because they are a Bradford Pear. I always see a reason why they failed, not just the brittle wood, but V-crotches and thick crowns. They don't HAVE TO fail.

I don't have experience with cottonwood, only seen one in Maryland and it was huge and I actually used to park my log truck under it.

All I'm saying is, I guess there is the POSSIBILITY that a tree could be dangerous just from the specie that it is and the size. But I still doubt it.
 
the most dangerous thing most people will do in a day, statistically speaking is get in their cars and drive, we all know this but still choose to take that risk. there are many things we can do to make our drives safer, and in the case of this tree there are many things we can do to mitigate the risk posed by this tree. if we can live with the level of risk that is posed by getting in our cars everyday, which is MUCH more likely to result in damage or injury then living in a house under a large tree, then why can we not live with the risk posed by the tree?

is it simply because we arent in the driver's seat?
 
dylanclimbs, there is a lot of truth in the analogy in terms of the level of risk exposure at least within the limits of what information is available to us....however there is a significant difference in the nature of the risk...

When getting into a car and driving you are largely voluntarily exposing yourself to the risks associated with the action

The exposure to risks associated with the presence of trees in the urban environment is largely involuntary.

I am not suggesting that all risks associated with driving are voluntary, just that the distinction at a broad level between risk of injury in driving and risk of injury from tree failures exists. We certainly make assumptions about the designed safety of all the various complex elements of making a journey by car/bus train or whatever.

You are absolutely correct (imo) that the risks of significant harm from tree failure (parts or whole) ahould be assessed in the same manner that other risk exposures are

...in this context the term "safe" is not useful or appropriate.

...Hazard does not equal risk,

...some elements can be quantified and should be,

...some elements rely on our experience, understanding and knowledge;and are highly subjective,

...this simply means we should be clear and concise in stating the limitations inherent in our assessments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom