Re: topped tree - finish the job or let it resprou
Man, thats alot to follow up with:
Lets see, we probably can't replant and keep the tree (at least not in the same spot) because the tree is in a small "island" in the parking lot. but there is plenty of space for tons of other trees.
I haven't read the tree ordinance in its entirety (my bad), but basically in my experience the replacement orders are given to you & you have a provided list of trees to choose from. In the end though, any ordinance is going to rely upon the UF's that enforce policy & they have some authority to choose & interpret - as they should.
The city didn't screw up, the church did. but my point was that a topped tree in a high-vis. area is like a neon sign of bad tree care. The fact that the tree was in a city managed "zone" & to be pruned under the written guidance of the city - this makes the city look bad, like they screwed up thier management. Especially to the UF in charge. Now that the tree has been topped, and after my talk with the UF in charge - it seemed to me that the main reason the tree is to be removed is to "get rid of the evidence". Although that was never specifically stated - why else would they give a Jan. 31 due date for the tree to be removed? (obviously they have to give a due date, but it adds to my suspicion that it is so quick).
My frustration is that the tree can regrow, but the authorities are disallowing the possibility - so an "ugly tree" (the UF's words) will be removed.
I would say without question that a freshly topped tree is safer than a natural canopy - see Ed Gilman's research. The question is, can you manage a topped tree with future good pruning & have a safe tree? I say yes you can - certainly it calls for more care, but as an Arborist, thats what I do for trees.
And yes I would tell a client about the "high maintenance" tree that is created by topping. But I would say that you have a choice. In the case of Jeffs tree, the city is making the choice & it may be the right one for them. I just wanted to see what other folks thought - and would they consider choosing differently.
By the way, I gave my bid for removal & we will probably get the job in the next few days. I would rather the tree stay, regrow & hit the church in the wallet every three years til eternity - but it ain't up to me.
Man, thats alot to follow up with:
Lets see, we probably can't replant and keep the tree (at least not in the same spot) because the tree is in a small "island" in the parking lot. but there is plenty of space for tons of other trees.
I haven't read the tree ordinance in its entirety (my bad), but basically in my experience the replacement orders are given to you & you have a provided list of trees to choose from. In the end though, any ordinance is going to rely upon the UF's that enforce policy & they have some authority to choose & interpret - as they should.
The city didn't screw up, the church did. but my point was that a topped tree in a high-vis. area is like a neon sign of bad tree care. The fact that the tree was in a city managed "zone" & to be pruned under the written guidance of the city - this makes the city look bad, like they screwed up thier management. Especially to the UF in charge. Now that the tree has been topped, and after my talk with the UF in charge - it seemed to me that the main reason the tree is to be removed is to "get rid of the evidence". Although that was never specifically stated - why else would they give a Jan. 31 due date for the tree to be removed? (obviously they have to give a due date, but it adds to my suspicion that it is so quick).
My frustration is that the tree can regrow, but the authorities are disallowing the possibility - so an "ugly tree" (the UF's words) will be removed.
I would say without question that a freshly topped tree is safer than a natural canopy - see Ed Gilman's research. The question is, can you manage a topped tree with future good pruning & have a safe tree? I say yes you can - certainly it calls for more care, but as an Arborist, thats what I do for trees.
And yes I would tell a client about the "high maintenance" tree that is created by topping. But I would say that you have a choice. In the case of Jeffs tree, the city is making the choice & it may be the right one for them. I just wanted to see what other folks thought - and would they consider choosing differently.
By the way, I gave my bid for removal & we will probably get the job in the next few days. I would rather the tree stay, regrow & hit the church in the wallet every three years til eternity - but it ain't up to me.
