Toronto man killed by falling branch

I did a lot of work in and around parks at the beaches a few winters ago. They only wanted the trees near the paths worked on. Everything else stayed broken and smashed.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
That looks like a metasequoia surrounded by tape but if you google you will find a photo of a Siberian elm limb on a bike. No photo of the broken end. Time to hire a tree cutting ISA CA to emote as an expert.
 
Oh the experts are out already, likely with no experience other than as a chainsaw operator. Bet they have no ideas of budgets, risk assessment and analysis, prioritization, tree inspection techniques, mycological inspection, summer branch drop (theory) etc., but have chainsaw and ISA CA and you can be furious.
 
I'm that Arborist in the interview. This was a badly neglected Siberian Elm next to a high traffic pathway in the busiest park in the city. This tree still had broken limbs and stubs from the ice storm we had in 2013. I also walked the news crew through the park and pointed out about a dozen incidents of large dead limbs in canopies of various trees throughout the park.
 
I could go either way on this one.
I don`t believe it`s fair or accurate to downplay the potential qualifications of whoever was sent out to evaluate the tree. There happen to be some incredible arborists with the city.
However we have all seen sketchy situations apparently left on the backburner for whatever reasons.
I was involved in a taskforce put together to look at the school trip fatality at the RBG around ten years ago. The complexities of these situations are astounding. No simple answers.
 
http://globalnews.ca/news/2772687/t...r-tree-maintenance-at-trinity-bellwoods-park/
robinia said:
I could go either way on this one.
I don`t believe it`s fair or accurate to downplay the potential qualifications of whoever was sent out to evaluate the tree. There happen to be some incredible arborists with the city.
However we have all seen sketchy situations apparently left on the backburner for whatever reasons.
I was involved in a taskforce put together to look at the school trip fatality at the RBG around ten years ago. The complexities of these situations are astounding. No simple answers.
Click to expand...
I didn't even view the tree that caused the fatality before the Limb was cleaned up and the stump repaired, I agree with you 100%. It is a very complicated task determining cause and liability. However is it not reasonable to believe that if this tree was restoratively pruned after receiving damage during the ice storm that this could have been avoided? My answer to that question is "probably" not definitely.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE

I didn't even view the tree that caused the fatality before the Limb was cleaned up and the stun repaired, [/QUOTE]¸


I`m guessing there are two reasons for that. 1.) Common decency: nobody wants people to be viewing a gory scene or even just the aftermath. But 2.) the cynic in me wonders if there isn`t some sort of rush to get rid of the `evidence` before every armchair arborist comes around to form and give their own opinions.
 
Lets say hypothetically that this is indeed a matter of neglect:
This stuff ALWAYS comes back to operational budget constraints. Assuming there was a known hazard there is no way that these situations would be willingly tolerated if there was any way whatsoever of dealing with it better. Every public tree would be evaluated and well maintained in a perfect world but it is simply impractical. I can only assume that the prioritized work in the city simply hasnt reached those situations yet.

But another thought: how many crap trees are being preserved in the pursuit of the targeted canopy cover figures...
 
robinia said:
Lets say hypothetically that this is indeed a matter of neglect:
This stuff ALWAYS comes back to operational budget constraints. Assuming there was a known hazard there is no way that these situations would be willingly tolerated if there was any way whatsoever of dealing with it better. Every public tree would be evaluated and well maintained in a perfect world but it is simply impractical. I can only assume that the prioritized work in the city simply hasnt reached those situations yet.

But another thought: how many crap trees are being preserved in the pursuit of the targeted canopy cover figures...
Click to expand...
Exactly, I believe the city has a policy for tree maintenance that does not include exceptions for special attention on a park by park basis. Trinity Bellwoods sees 10,000 people a day on the weekends, it's insane the pedestrian traffic we have. Today I showed the reporters 5 large dead limbs attached to a number of trees throughout the park. With crowds of people under them. Dead wooding is the most basic level of care, and when that alone isn't being met I believe there is a problem.
 
Last edited:
There is a problem and it has to do with budgets and staffing, almost one in the same. I've yet to come across any city, town or borough that has adequate staff of arborists that either do assessments or the work and, budgets that would support the kind of effort needed to keep up with the demand. Whether they do it in-house or outsource it, there are limited budget dollars for this type of work. NYC saw several deaths and near misses a few years ago in Central Park despite having a team of arborists dedicated to that park alone.

What I would like to hear from anyone who is interested in criticizing the city's approach to determine what would be the level of staffing and the dollars necessary to sustain the kind of tree care that would be acceptable.

You could start here to come up with some numbers….http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=5905cacb759e0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
 
While it is cheap it's not that which is costly. 3.5 million trees in the parks and ravines. How many man hours to assess them? In which priority? Or look at it this way, 1500 parks and 600 km of trails. How many hours? Setting the priority then establishes the number of employees needed to assess and address deficiencies in a timely fashion. Then run the numbers to determine the costs. What's the budget now? How much of an increase would there be? Where does that money come from?

I'm n0t defending the city but looking at the reality of the challenge they are faced with. I've not even taken into account the street trees which add another 600,000 trees to be managed. Do you think the taxpayers would approve a special levy to cover the costs? Do you really thing they can find sufficient savings in improved workflow and streamlining processes? 80,000 requests annually, what is the average man hours/request, 1, 2, 5? At 1 hr that's 40 front line workers just to handle the requests. What are the back office requirements of managing and tracking those requests? On and on it goes.. Easy to say not so easy to do.
 
Yes Humper that is one of the calculations that needs to be made. The other is what is the cost/benefit analysis. Throwing an extra million dollars at one park may not change the injury or death rate. My guess is that the death rate from falling trees and limbs on municipal property in Toronto is at a rate so slow that it would be almost impossible to reduce further. Nevillle Fay has written on this issue in Britain.

It is also worth noting that there is a huge difference between intensive single tree pruning and urban forestry over a city. Every single village, town, city, municipality, and metropolis I have ever been in does not maintain its trees to the standard that a tree climber might want but it does maintain them to the level of interest and money that does exist.
 
My point to the news folks and the public is that there is a bare minimum of care not being performed, they claim to have increased their budget to shift to a more proactive approach, it would be interesting to see where that money is going because there is a good amount of large deadwood in the park over high traffic areas. Some of which has been there for a while, delaminated, sun bleached limbs.
 
Why don't you ask where the money is going? Why don't you draft a report on the costs and methodologies to increase maintenance to the level you deem the bare minimum.

I can tell you that any city with EAB is spending a lot on control and removals. Nothing hidden there.
 
Drewtree said:
My point to the news folks and the public is that there is a bare minimum of care not being performed
Click to expand...
You should walk the streets and stroll through the parks down here. I just finished doing $6K worth of deadwooding and hazard pruning at one town pool. The only reason they spent that was it didn't get done last year and the rec manager could barely sleep all season. Toronto has a budget that would be the envy of many but it still pales in comparison to the need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom