the guy said...

that is tragic. it does beg the question; what could have been done to prevent this tragedy? the answer is that this tree should have been inspected and removed prior to this terrible event. that being said, this one case does not mean that ALL large trees near houses should be removed.

in the city I currently live in, major windstorms on two separate occasions in recent history knocked down many of the large trees which were exposed to the prevailing winds on the north side of lake skaha. to the best of my knowledge, thankfully no one was injured. these were, for the most part, healthy, mature trees (ponderosa pines) that had withstood many seasons of windstorms in residential streets and busy parks. if we were to remove all trees in areas that incurred wind gusts that also were frequented by pedestrians, or were in residential areas, what would we be left with? would you recommend the planting of smaller potential species?...perhaps this is the answer.

my heart goes out to the family and friends of this young man. my argument remains the same. large trees need to be professionally inspected and maintained in order that any unreasonable hazards to people and property are removed before they can manifest themselves in this exact type of scenario. this scenario, imo does not give us carte blanche to state that any large tree located near houses or parks needs to be removed...
 
Dan it probably reads like I am having a go at you personally...I am not, if we were both to visit the tree I suspect that we would in all likelihood agree about the recommendations.

I just can't make such a definative call from the pics alone, and won't go down the track of defining risk on the basis of tree size...the fact that size of part is a major element in any tree risk assessment is a given and not at all what I believe is being suggested by the emphasis on tree size in this thread.

The tragic death of the young man in your second post is terrible, my thoughts go out to his parents and friends.
 
Sean you and the rest of the posters here are fine by me. I've attended dozens of tree evaluation seminars over the years...one of the best was Shigo and Matheck(spelling?.

I see a lot of guess work and assumptions being made. It's a fact that nobody can really tell what the root system is like some distance from the tree. We don't know if the tree sits on a rock base a couple of feet underground....we don't know how the soil drains in a one hundred year rain...we don't know what weather events are in the future.

What I see are a lot of 'best guesses'. There is not tree equivalent of a human CAT scan at this time. I've seen the ground penetrating radar used to map root systems....but very few people are doing such analysis on root systems and even if they are...the technology for trees just isn't there yet... it's mostly just best guesses.

I think there is a lot of guessing going on when arborist analyze such a large tree....pretending that they have even close to a complete picture....I just don't believe they do.

I hate to see large trees go but I also don't feel the people living under them are getting a fair shake being exposed 24/7 to the destruction the tree we are discussing will cause if it goes over..or even if a large leader fails.

To me the assertion that such a tree is 'safe' rings hollow and is more like a religious conviction than one based on science. I wish it weren't like that but it is.
 
I do not disagree with your points Dan, so maybe its time for me to quit climbing my postal hobby horse.

"Safe" is not a term I would consider appropriate in tree risk assessment

We need to be honest with our clients about what we do and do not know, what is quantifiable and what is subjective...but just as importantly we need to be honest with ourselves, and understand ourselves what the limitations are to our assessments (particularly tree risk assessments)

Tree owners almost invariably want to know if their tree will be safe in the next storm, its understandable, I understand that desire, that concern...the worry it is real for them.

If any of us believe we can answer that question "is it safe?' then we are wasting our valuable fortune telling time dabling in trees...get thee to the casino.

But to extrapolate from that (which I'm sure is not what you are doing Dan) therefore that big trees should be removed because they are big and will eventually fail is irrational to me, and flies in the face of what I have learnt from modern Arboriculture.

OK my hobby horse need a rest, and I'm sure anyone bored enough to be still reading my posts does too.
 
[ QUOTE ]


OK my hobby horse need a rest, and I'm sure anyone bored enough to be still reading my posts does too.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are doing fine Sean and I believe your points are as valid as mine...maybe more so.
beerchug.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Cottonwoods react so well to crown reduction and especially cabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I started off my post by stating that I've never even seen a Cottonwood so how should I know how they react to crown reduction and cabling.

Makes sense to me though if he's worried about it falling lighten it up and brace it with static cables. And thats only if he wanted it saved which he doesn't.

But from what I've heard cottonwoods are alot like poplars and I would not want a poplar of that size near my house, because a poplar doesn't know when to stop growing(at least around here) they grow until they fail.
 
[ QUOTE ]
To me the assertion that such a tree is 'safe' rings hollow and is more like a religious conviction than one based on science. I wish it weren't like that but it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'd just like to point out that not one of us arguing for the systematic assessment along with hazard mitigation techniques once said that any of that would make the tree 'safe.' you are right, imo that there a large amount of subjectivity in the realm of tree assessment. but the practice of hazard assessment, as well as modern arboriculture does have foundation in science, and we should not forget this.

one can argue that ALL human knowledge follows from assumption, but at some point the documentation and hard work of those who have spent countless hours researching our reality must be considered. upon consideration, it would seem that there is a certain amount of science involved in hazard assessment. therefore, if we apply the lens of scientific research as thoroughly as possible and couple that with our ability to consider the particular factors involved, then we SHOULD end up with a result as free as can possibly be, from said assumption.

sean is right, 'safe' should be considered taboo when hazard assessment of trees is done.

ill take that drink of shut the #%%$ up now.
 
Maybe the tree isn't a hazard. Maybe a tree that large is destroying the foundation , plumbing, the neighbors plumbing even ? I do not think a tree can get too large, but a tree can out grow its environment. In my opinion a healthy tree should be given the respect of trying to mitigate any hazard or problem present ,but if the owner doesn't budge it is then our job to remove the tree in the safest manor possible .
 
This has very little to do with the tree at hand here but in reading this thread, a common phrase keeps occuring: "If the owner wants" "If the owner insists" "It's the owner's right".

Ownership of an object does not absolve that person from responsibility. No more than owning a dog allows you the right to abuse it. Trees are literally multi-generational.

If a tree has been maintained in proper care and health, for 300 years then that property is purchased by a 50 year old who decides the acorns are "too messy" and wants the tree removed; is this indeed his right? Are there not other factors involved here besides this temporary ownership?

Dave
 
[ QUOTE ]
This has very little to do with the tree at hand here but in reading this thread, a common phrase keeps occuring: "If the owner wants" "If the owner insists" "It's the owner's right".

Ownership of an object does not absolve that person from responsibility. No more than owning a dog allows you the right to abuse it. Trees are literally multi-generational.

If a tree has been maintained in proper care and health, for 300 years then that property is purchased by a 50 year old who decides the acorns are "too messy" and wants the tree removed; is this indeed his right? Are there not other factors involved here besides this temporary ownership?

Dave

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.
 
So here we are...3 weeks and 8 pages of thread later, and all I want to know 123 is did you get the contract or not? Is the tree down yet or what? Snap some pics and post 'em if you got 'em!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the tree isn't a hazard. Maybe a tree that large is destroying the foundation , plumbing, the neighbors plumbing even ? I do not think a tree can get too large, but a tree can out grow its environment. In my opinion a healthy tree should be given the respect of trying to mitigate any hazard or problem present ,but if the owner doesn't budge it is then our job to remove the tree in the safest manor possible .

[/ QUOTE ]
.

Trees don't destroy plumbing they take advantage of plumbing that has shifted and leaks water. Old clay tile drains are notorious for that and a tree root growing inside them is an indicator the drain should be replaced not that the tree should come down. Same goes for foundation walls. Structural deficiencies such as cracks not trees growing next to them are the problem. People need to get a clue!
 
[ QUOTE ]


Trees don't destroy plumbing they take advantage of plumbing that has shifted and leaks water. Old clay tile drains are notorious for that and a tree root growing inside them is an indicator the drain should be replaced not that the tree should come down. Same goes for foundation walls. Structural deficiencies such as cracks not trees growing next to them are the problem. People need to get a clue!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I tell people exactly that every chance I get, but its hard when the local Sewage Truck has a huge banner with a picture of roots going into a pipe and the caption "85% of pumping problems are caused by tree roots". Haven't been able to stop them yet and tell them thats wrong, but they probably wouldn't listen anyway.
 
I still might chew it down for $9000. I've been upping my rates but I'd have to double them to be satisfied. I'm hoping for $100/bid and paid in advance for work and maybe an invoicing fee. Why not. Maybe a deadbeat tax.
 
No sense in bumping this old [pick a different word] thread, everyone is getting into rope racing now, big trees are stupid. You know you want to, all the cool kids are doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom