the guy said...

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]


A consideration is how many risks do we want to compound on top of each other?

A large healthy, strong wooded species will be very different that one prone to sudden limb drop--another consideration.



In a person's long term property management plan, should they have one, they must consider whether the tree is okay right now, as well as in 5, 10, 20 years.
Rental owners have to recognize the potential danger that a renter may not. As an investment (the rental property), the property owner has to weigh changing things to improve occupancy rate (both over time and in the financial amount) and financial risk/ return, whether it is regarding a tree, bathroom remodel, or foundation preservation.
 
don't get me wrong, i began my career in arboriculture in a city in which poplars were the prevailing large tree species. i am very familiar with sudden limb drop and the problems associated with large cottonwoods.

however, my problem is with condemning these trees on the basis that they are weak wooded and prone to sudden limb cast. ive seen failures on strong wooded species as well, and when it comes to large trees its all about hazard recognition and mitigation, which is our job. saying a tree needs to be removed on the basis that it is large, weak wooded, prone to limb cast and close to a house, without having inspected the tree and with minimal information about the tree, is just plain ignorant. like i said earlier, the biggest tree in calgary makes this thing look like a shrub, and its living over MORE targets. it has been professionally cared for and is inspected annually (to the best of my knowledge). this is the best we as arborist can do to mitigate the potential hazard. trees do fail and in the same regard you can buckle up, drive with both hands on the wheel and still get hit by a drunk.

im just saying, there is not enough information here to make the call that this tree poses an unreasonable hazard that a conscientious arborist SHOULD recognize and recommend removal.

but, that being said it looks like a fun riggin job, until you get to that trunk
zombie.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


im just saying, there is not enough information here to make the call that this tree poses an unreasonable hazard that a conscientious arborist SHOULD recognize and recommend removal.

zombie.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that more information is needed from an in-person, hopefully aerial inspection (unless there are clear red flags from the ground) before any course of action is prescribed to the homeowner. Meanwhile, the discussion continues...
 
I'm way late on this thread and haven't read all the posts but I'd definitely have the service lines dropped, it would make the rigging a LOT cleaner and easier to set up. Around here they drop service for free with 48 hours notice and get it back up within an hour or so after you call them back.

I've done some that big without a crane but it's such a big production... it's worth hiring a big enough unit to make the reach even if it's just to get the wood out to the trucks.
 
[ QUOTE ]
but Mark Chisholm tells the crucial tree risk/client management story brilliantly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really Guy? Thanks a million! I wrote that in hopes to tackle a new topic. I am glad you liked it. That really makes me glad I wrote it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but Mark Chisholm tells the crucial tree risk/client management story brilliantly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really Guy? Thanks a million! I wrote that in hopes to tackle a new topic. I am glad you liked it. That really makes me glad I wrote it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this the story in the Stihl ad?
 
This is hard to evaluate from here "my couch", but I would agree that a large tree of any species does not mean that it is unsafe. There are always options. One that a landlord might like is the prune, cable and monitor option. It would save them money (which I know they would love) and could make them a long term client, and removal might eventually be the solution down the road anyway.
 
I've been watching you guys make comments on both sides of the arguement, and I've avoided making my own because I haven't had enough risk assessment experience to trust my own opinion, and since I've never seen a cottonwood so that puts me even further in the dark.

But after reading the opinions here mine has stayed the same, if the home owner wanted it saved I would suggest a crown reduction, deadwooding, and cabling, otherwise removal.

However I must say this: If that were my house that tree would be gone long ago, I've seen too many branch and root failures to sleep under a tree of that size and species, which is exactly what half of you guys have been against this thread.

So can I ask you guys if any of you could sleep under the tree in those pictures.
 
The answer is the same as it is for providing advice.

...size and species alone are NOT the significant elements in terms of assessing the risk of significant harm, since we know a target exists (the house and its occupants) then it comes down to our assessment of the health and structural integrity of the tree and its parts.

...the pictures DO NOT provide the information necessary to form an informed opinion.

If I could see no visible evidence of any structural problems then yes I would definately want to benfit from having such a magnificent modifier of all aspects of environmental and climate extremes over my home.

If I had doubts about the strength of the wood tissues of this species (as opposed to????) then I might install fall arrest cabling....the least preferred option in that regard would be to dramatically reduce photosynthetic capacity in a tree I had concerns over cellular cohesion and cell wall strength!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Cottonwoods react so well to crown reduction and especially cabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ivory Tower Tree can do it!
beerchug.gif




I believe the arborist profession loses a lot of creditability by insisting trees like this cottonwood can be made safe to sleep under and exhorting the enviromental benefits of having a monster tree over your head and house 24/7. Even people on the street know better, but then most of them are not caught up in tree worship. Don't get me wrong...I do love trees, but people come first.
 
i believe we lose credibility when blanket statements are made. i think the point we are trying to make is that we don't have enough info to make judgement that the tree needs to be removed. no one insisted it was safe, but that doesnt make it an unreasonable hazard, it needs to be inspected and maintained with due diligence in order for it to be a reasonable hazard. remember that statistically speaking (which is how we arrive at insurance rates) this tree poses far less a hazard then driving your kids around the block for ice cream. if we all went with your judgement the largest and most impressive tree in Calgary would have been long gone. try not to make this a personal assault. im glad you backed up your argument by referring to 'people on the street.' very professional.
 
The original post "he wants it out of here." Nowhere is he asking for help to save it. Nowhere is he asking to save money. Nowhere does he ask to reduce or even assess the risk. "he wants it out of here" so take it down. End of post.
 
right, but the thread transformed when someone asked WHY. it is our responsibility as arborists, to provide alternatives to removal when inspection of the tree yields results that suggest the tree is NOT an unreasonable hazard. therefore, it is up to us as arborists to try to educate the public and to preserve trees when the owners of said trees are unaware of the alternatives to removal. but perhaps you are right and a new thread should be started.

i cant tell you how many times, in my brief sales career, that i have been able to sell a prune/brace rather than a removal with only a little education to the customer. there will always be the option of removal, but perhaps in certain cases (maybe not this one) it would be wiser both from a business standpoint and from a tree preservation standpoint to preserve and maintain the tree.

if you want to only do what the customer asks and for you the buck stops there, that is your prerogative, but hopefully you can forgive and perhaps understand why that is just not good enough for me.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ivory Tower Tree can do it!

[/ QUOTE ]

No not at all, real Modern Arboriculture does it every time; providing best practice to our clients based on sound understanding and knowledge based on research and practical experience that extends beyond the individual and the anecdotal.

Providing anything less to people who pay their hard earned for it is what leads to a loss of credibility IMO.

People on the street have a very poorly informed understanding of what actual tree risk is, they certainly should expect us as professionals to provide them with more than a generalised - one size fits all - assess it from an armchair - that'll be $(insert inflated value here) thank you approach.

This post has morphed into more than the original context, I would reiterate what dylanclimbs has said, if all you do when entering a person's property is limit yourself to what they tell you they want in terms of tree management,then that is up to you.

For many of us we see ourselves as bringing a lot more to clients than a chainsaw and the willingness (and skill) to use it.

If the owner of a tree is provided with all the options that are practicable for their situation,and they decide that removal is what they want, that is their perogative, if the tree is not under a TPO/VPO then they can pretty much decide to what they want.

BTW ensuring first and foremost that there is recognition of the very real, very signficant and very calculable multiple roles that bigger trees play in maintaining the kinds of environments in our suburbs that most of us actually want to live in...is NOT about "exhorting" anything, it is about redressing an erroneous and skewed perspective.
 
[ QUOTE ]
"It's in the back yard; you can't miss it". And so it was; 7' across waist high and probably 10' at roof level. He's having trouble getting tennants so he wants it out of here. He says don't worry about grinding the stump just get it down below the roof. How does a cottonwoood seed ever get this big?

IMG_6452.jpg


IMG_6447.jpg


[/ QUOTE ]

Sean I largely agree with everything you've said but in this case.......I think this tree should go. The owner wants the tree out and I understand his concern.

[ QUOTE ]


No not at all, real Modern Arboriculture does it every time; providing best practice to our clients based on sound understanding and knowledge based on research and practical experience that extends beyond the individual and the anecdotal.

Providing anything less to people who pay their hard earned for it is what leads to a loss of credibility IMO.

People on the street have a very poorly informed understanding of what actual tree risk is, they certainly should expect us as professionals to provide them with more than a generalised - one size fits all - assess it from an armchair - that'll be $(insert inflated value here) thank you approach.

This post has morphed into more than the original context, I would reiterate what dylanclimbs has said, if all you do when entering a person's property is limit yourself to what they tell you they want in terms of tree management,then that is up to you.

For many of us we see ourselves as bringing a lot more to clients than a chainsaw and the willingness (and skill) to use it.

If the owner of a tree is provided with all the options that are practicable for their situation,and they decide that removal is what they want, that is their perogative, if the tree is not under a TPO/VPO then they can pretty much decide to what they want.

BTW ensuring first and foremost that there is recognition of the very real, very signficant and very calculable multiple roles that bigger trees play in maintaining the kinds of environments in our suburbs that most of us actually want to live in...is NOT about "exhorting" anything, it is about redressing an erroneous and skewed perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
 
Tree falls on Etowah house, kills 18-year-old boy
Posted: Apr 13, 2009 9:47 AM EDT
Updated: May 13, 2009 9:41 AM EDT

The tree uprooted and fell, caving in much of the left side of the Byers' home.
Special CoverageTVA Coal Ash Spill



http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=10172771#

199246-TreeKills18yearoldboy.jpg



By KRISTYN CADDELL
6 News Reporter

ETOWAH (WATE) -- A falling tree that hit a house in Etowah early Monday morning killed an 18-year-old boy in an upstairs bedroom.

The victim is Michael Byers, who graduated last year from McMinn Central High School.

"He was a great kid we are all very upset," says neighbor Shirley Goodman.

"He would come and mow the neighbor's yards on Saturdays including mine," says neighbor Watty Smith.

The accident was on County Road 807, off Highway 411 south, about 5:30 a.m. Monday. The home is in a subdivision.

The teen's parents, Mike and Kelly Byers, were also in the house when the tree hit but they weren't injured.

The tree uprooted and fell, caving in much of the left side of the Byers' home.

Officials say strong winds brought down several trees in the Etowah area Monday morning.

Crews from the McMinn County Sheriff's Department and a fire department responded to the scene.

It took about three hours to stabilize the house and another two-and-a-half hours to remove Michael's body. Firefighters say he died instantly.

"This neighborhood will greatly miss him," adds Smith.

Michael's parents will stay at a neighbor's home until they decide what to do next.
 

Attachments

  • 199246-TreeKills18yearoldboy.webp
    199246-TreeKills18yearoldboy.webp
    10.9 KB · Views: 43
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom