Tree Activist

based on the pictures i see of the site this tree stands on it looks like this tree is doomed . because while all the people that are there think they are saving this tree it is quite obvious that they don't have a clue on what damage they are causing to this tree by compacting the soil around it and it also looks like the developer before all this became a problem had his share in destroying the earth and root system as well . i do not take any sides on this matter because it is quite clear that the developer has no clue as to what the first steps would be to preserve any tree and one other fact is very clear neither do the activists. you see the problem is not whether this should go or that should stay the problem is if your gonna fight for a cause at least know what the hell you are talking about and unfortunatly most developers and activist not all but the majority have no clue . it almost seems like the mother and father argueing about what is best for the baby while they are playing tug of war with its arms .while both sides are argueing this tree is dying . as i said i do not have a problem with any person fighting for a cause if they feel in thier heart it is right because that is what made this country what it is today . however i do have a problem with people who are to quick to pull the trigger before they even know what the hell they are talking about . so my question is if the builder moves his road to save this tree and this tree dies who's fault is it gonna be then surely it will not be the activists because they love this tree and nothing ever died because it was loved right? wrong.
 
Well, in this particular case I have to agree. After seeing the picture, the prospects for this particular tree do not look good. Everyone is concerned with the half of the tree above ground, but no one seems to be concerned with the other half below ground. But since no one can see that half, it probably isn't important.
 
That site does look a bit stressful for a mature tree. Though I'm all for moving a road to save a "healthy" old tree, that picture brings up a few questions in my mind:

1. Can a tree that size actually be 400 years old.(not that important)
2. Are there that many people who can just hang out around a tree all day to "fight for a cause"?
3. How many arborists are in that picture?
4. How many arborists think that they are enviromental activists? Never cut down a healthy tree for any reason?
5. How many of those people are actually genuine? Could it be that the fight is more pleasing than the cause for some?
6. How many activists live in synthetic houses, have fake furniture and only use recycled paper?

Just some thoughts. In all honesty, I have helped to change the minds of some developers that I have done tree work for to help save some more select trees, but I am far from an enviromental activist. I have cut down healthy trees to make way for a new home a time or two. How many arborists haven't?

I like some of the deep thoughts here and the history given (Jerry). Thanks for your opinions.

It is my opinion that we have come a long way in our approach. Truth is trees are one of the greatest (and only) "renewable" resources we have. If some care and thought is applied, tree harvesting shouldn't be frowned upon. Trees give us so many great things. I love my job and I love trees, but trees aren't people. Plant a tree and speak your mind, but fight to save your kids and other loved ones.

Oh yeah, and let's not get ignorant in our posts. This is a "professional" site. Would you speak to a potential client in such a way?
 
Roger,

Thanks for posting that link, that's what I was looking for.

I agree that there is high potential for soil compaction looking at the picture. Also notice lots of big fresh cuts. If you look at the small picture in the left of the page header the tree had a full crown to the ground.
 
MC point #1 - Can't tell you how many times I have been to some lady's house to see her "400 yr old oak". I am thinking - 50 tops. Here in Austin there was a big hoora about a road and an old oak next to a school. The oak had to go. Protesters claimed the indians used to camp there, etc and it was historic. A news team found a picture of the school in 1940 - yep, no tree. 400 or 40?

MC point #2 - These protesters must be trust-fund babies looking for a purpose in life since they have way too much time on their hands and obviously are with out any day to day responsibilities.

I think a lot of times it is just that the developers fail to ask the community for input. This alienates the community and puts them against the developer even if they wanted to save the tree. Then their point would be that the view of the tree is blocked. Get their input, hold their hands, give them free cookies and coffee - then do what you want with the dozers. They at least feel their input was important.

Have seen the same thing here with a privately held, public use park. The community was outraged because dozers showed up with no warning.

A lot of times it is not what you do that makes you right or wrong, it is how you do it.

I love these eco threads but please keep the trash talking out. A witty come back on topic is good but if you don't have a witty on topic comeback, save it. Everyone here has thick skin - they work with trees right?
 
Woah, what a hot debate! Talk about issues in perceived value and ultimate responsibility!

If we are in fact Stewards of Mother Earth's trees then we obviously need to be passionate and methodical about them. However, seems that we have discovered something here...On the one side are the so-called "greenies" and on the other hand we have the "hack and slash" contingency.

The "greenies" forward thier causes by using emotion to elicit the response they are looking for. Most often the emotion they elicit is Panic. As any one who has worked in a dangerous profession can tell you PANIC KILLS. Such emotionally driven stands often reflect intellectual immaturity. Not the way to approach any problem eh?

On the other side we all know that if you progress down a tight linear logic path you may very well drive right off a cliff when the bridge is out. Such rigidness often demonstrates a closed mindedness. Kinda sounds like lemmings doesn't it?

Lets face it, if we were in a life or death situation none of us would want a purely emotional individual calling the shots. By definition they would be unable to make critical and clear decisions.

By the same token though, life is not all "Life Critical" and a linear thinker could not possibly nurture the heart and soul as can the emoters.

The journey of life should be a progression from responding to "feelings" to acting on "thoughts."

Clearly Both sides have missed the fact that while they can remain true to their positions their position is not always the Correct one.

Does one tree really make a difference to either side? Not really. Does this particular tree have any value greater than the cost of moving the road? Perhaps. Have both parties wasted precious resources above and beyond the real costs of the solution? Emphatically, Yes!

That is why we as Arbos need to work to provide a balance solution. No, Mr. Greenie you can't have your way all the time, and no Ms. Hack-n-Slasher, just because it looks right on paper does not mean that it is the only practical solution.

As Arbos we need to be able to assess the issues on both sides and then create a plan that enables the end goal to be achieved. Is it economically preferred to move the tree or re-rout the road? Is the tree really that significant historically/Culturally? Is the tree going to survive regardless of what we do?

On final note here to consider, often times trees and Mother Earth are the Greenie's religion. As we have recently discovered, religious fanaticism cannot be countered easily and no amount of reason or compromise will change the mind of a religious fanatic.

Personally, I think that whoever wants final control of the tree should be willing to purchase the rights to it and then do so. If thier cause is that important they give them a reasonable opportunity to raise the cash and take it. I'm tired of watching people being forced into bowing to the demands of greenies (& others)and then pay for it on thier own hook.

Food for thought.

Keep Vertical!

Rick Wood
 
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />

On final note here to consider, often times trees and Mother Earth are the Greenie's religion. As we have recently discovered, religious fanaticism cannot be countered easily and no amount of reason or compromise will change the mind of a religious fanatic.

Personally, I think that whoever wants final control of the tree should be willing to purchase the rights to it and then do so. If thier cause is that important they give them a reasonable opportunity to raise the cash and take it. I'm tired of watching people being forced into bowing to the demands of greenies (&amp; others)and then pay for it on thier own hook.

Rick Wood


[/ QUOTE ]
Rick,

I guess you'd say I'm a greenie, but it's not a religious thing with me. Still, I think there are greater interests in the world than private property rights.
I see your point about developers getting stuck with ths check for these things, and don't necessarily disagree with you, but what if a land developer wants to remove a specimen tree and won't hear about some preservationist buying it?

I contend that, as "stewards" of planet earth, we must consider the intrinsic value of certain trees. Wouldn't you be sorry to learn that you could no longer visit 3000-yr-old sequoias and show them to your grandchildren because there were none left? Fortunately, the sequoias are not as threatened because they are not a viable cash crop, but I'm using them as an extreme example.

What about a 400-yr-old oak? I think a tree that has been here longer than The United States has existed deserve more consideration than some guy who wants to put a second story on his garage. I realize there are younger trees that can replace them, but will they ever reach that point if we keep treating all trees as disposable? You don't have to believe in the "rights of trees;" as fellow humans we should all have the right to appreciate and enjoy such amazing specimens. A developer will often choose the best tree in his subdivision and put the two-story house on that lot (right next to the tree) rather than preserving the tree and putting the tall house somewhere it will fit better. Not only the new homeowner (who may not realize his new tree is going to suffer for years) but the whole neighborhood suffers as a result.

Not saying I have all the answers, but I refuse to give up the idea that there is a societal entity that should be considered as well as a private interest. Communism? maybe, but you'll have to convince me.

keith
 
Hi Kieth,

I thinkw we are still on the same page here. Certainly there is intrinsic non-tangible value to many things whether they be trees, landmark buildings, even archeological sites to name a few. Part of the point I am trying to make is that all we ever hear about is how the activists are trying to leagally force (I call it confiscate) such things from the people who have expended time money and effort to obtain it.

One of the best solutions I have seen here in Vermont is the VT Land Trust. In short, if there is a parcel that is worthy of preservation (notice i didn't say conservation as they are 2 different things yet a topic for separate discussion some time) then the land is either donated to the land trust, or the land trust mounts a capital campaign to purchase it.

Imagine if you will buying a tree truck or other equipment for your business and then having someone file for an injuction against you using the hydraulic pump on it because it happened to be of potential historical significance.

Kinda makes the whole truck somewhat useless, even if you could bypass the original pump with a new one.

Now imagine that you have to pay for all the legal and other costs to defend your original purchase.

I often think that developers dig their heels in not so much that they oppose the preservation of such significant features rather they are tired of the endless harassment they get from activists. If its not the tree then it is the swamp, if not the swamp then the grasshopper if not the grass hopper then the storm water. The list is endless.

The US constitution has a provision preventing the government from siezing property without giving the owner compensation. Forcing someone to reroute a road or renedering an ontherwise useable property un useable can reasonably considered seizure and thus the owner is due compensation.

Just another POV to think about.

Keep Vertical!

Rick
 
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />

I often think that developers dig their heels in not so much that they oppose the preservation of such significant features rather they are tired of the endless harassment they get from activists. If its not the tree then it is the swamp, if not the swamp then the grasshopper if not the grass hopper then the storm water. The list is endless.


[/ QUOTE ] Rick,
Isn't the list so endless because the situation is so desparate? We've done the property rights thing so long that there are not many wetlands left, there are endangered species in every neighborhood, the really prime trees are dwindling in number. Here in TX, it's all about water these days. The mighty Rio Grande no longer reaches the Gulf because every municipality along its length is sucking part of it out (often to grow St. Augustine lawns that have little hope of surviving the heat without huge amounts of irrigation). Austin, San Antonio, and the smaller communities in the vicinity negotiate with the Lower Colorado River Authority to buy up the unpumped river contents and the aquifer below us for decades to come. Tough luck in 2020 if your mayor/city manager/public works director is not effective as a negotiator now.

I guess what I'm saying is, the "renewable" natural resources are getting depleted faster than they can bounce back and the historical property rights need to be revisited before it's too late. Maybe the local mall is more important to the economy than the cave-dwelling spiders it displaced, but how many malls can we build before the loss of a species? how many species can we lose before the food chain breaks down? This isn't about bugs and swamps, it's about a delicate web of interconnected species. We break connections every day; at some point, we have to start preserving the remainder.

Then again, my average lot in the middle of town should increase in value when the oceans rise and it becomes beachfront. Screw the future, I got mine.

keith
 
And awayyyy he goes!

Howdy Gentlemen (and ladies, if you're out there!)-
Tomorrow, I am going to climb Old Glory and check this out....maybe have a chat with Mr Quigly (?) and see how things are going. let me know if you have any questions for him!

love
nick
 
I believe tree sitting does have its place, if only to draw attention to the tree or forest being cut. I was personally involved in a tree sit a few years ago. A 27 acre piece of land with an old growth forest of white oaks was about to be leveled to make room for a public school with a life expectancy of 30 years. The co-champion white oak was part of the forest.

I was working with a number of organizations; my role was training the tree sitters, myself being the lead climber. The day the suit hit court, I went up with 2 weeks of supplies. We created a diversion at one end of the park while my team of 3 slipped in to climb the champion tree. The whole area was being cordoned off with a chain link fence, and the contractor had parked all of his equipment in the street, assuming he would have the green light that day. A lot of news was generated by the action.

The public schools experienced their first loss that day. We won because the land was deeded over to the county to be used only as a nature park. The tree sitters (6 more were in place to climb) would have drawn more attention to the forest had it gone wrong in court. The action pulled a lot of community together. A tree sit is never done alone by one person- believe me! It takes a solid team, involving hundreds of people. And I’ll be quick to say it is not all roses in the wee hours of night knowing from past history of other actions that people who disagree with your stance can sneak in and physically harm you while you are up in the tree.
 
Re: Tree Activists

Hey babberney, I am glad to hear that you feel that way. It seems that a lot of great climbers, especially those that specialize in removals do it for the wrong reasons (to collect what they think is a big check, adrenaline or another notch on their gun) if I were a customer with some dead trees and some live ones that he wanted to keep alive I would want to hire someone that loved trees and only wanted to remove the ones that truely posed a hazard, and not because of those other reasons. Do you and other climbers agree with what I am saying or am I just a raving environmentalist or potential threat to progress. I like adrenaline as much as any climber (about 50% of my workload is removals). I think that if this frame of mind is not kept in check in some people they can be extremely dangerous and let it cloud their judgement and they would not be someone I would want to hire or work with even though sometimes they are high production climbers due to their lack of fear for the tougher jobs. When I Hear someone say they can remove any tree any where on any day I know that I am listening to an adrenaline junkie and possibly some other kind of junkie that doesn,t care about the quality of his work, the environment, the lives of his fellow workers etc. I hear this a lot from potential climbers wanting work or bragging idiots that are missing an unusually high # of teeth (is there a missing teeth/adrenaline junkie tree hating climber ratio study out there?:) the crumpled cowboy hat, multitude of prison tattoos of harley davidson tattoos and the rebel flag, 8th grade education and getting stoned before climbing go with this attitude also. By the way I am describing some of the people that have actually called me for an interview, I know there are some stereotypes here but our proffession is
 
Re: Tree Activists

Testosterone poisoning manifests itself with a lot of symptoms. You've captured some of them :)

For quite a while I thought that our profession had a corner on the "Big Dog" attitude. After talking with friends in many other professions, we don't have many unique qualities. Maybe the extremes are a little more extreme but there are as many "Big Dogs" in white collar professions too.

Tom
 
Re: Tree Activists

I think we all must be hooked on adrenaline at least a little. If not, we wouldn't do what we do. How many homeowners have you seen with looks on their faces like they can't believe we do this?
Still, I agree that some of us are in it for the rush more than the trees. Personally, I enjoy removals for the challenge (and the rush) but a twinge of guilt goes along with it most of the time. As we all know, "hazardous" is a relative term, and I always second-guess myself when I make the recommendation for a "class 4."

Here's a question:

Do you feel removals are justified if the tree is so close to the house the trunk is damaging the roof, or do you think the roof should be altered to accommodate the tree?

This one should separate the casual preservationist from the hard-core tree hugger.

keith
 
Re: Tree Activists

"Here's a question:

Do you feel removals are justified if the tree is so close to the house the trunk is damaging the roof, or do you think the roof should be altered to accommodate the tree?

This one should separate the casual preservationist from the hard-core tree hugger.

keith"

Keith, as a tree care practitioner I interpet my duty as being able to present fully to the customer the different options available and the reasons behind each option.
It really is not up to me. The tree belongs to the customer not me. My job is to provide valid up-to-date reasonable services.
Sometimes the customer will ask me "If this was your tree what would you do?"
In the case you mentioned about the roof. I have had many jobs where we got a carpenter in there and rebuilt the roof to arch around the trunk. But I have many who get it cut down. It is all situational.
Take the high road and set the instant profit goal aside for a moment. Regardless of the method of dealing with the tree if you apply valid correct methods you will have a long term customer.
And if they still want a hack to work for them so be it. JUst so it is not one of us :)

A little philosophy for a minute:
I am noticing a trend these days. All these giant companies, utilities and the like grabbing more and more profit at the expense of everything. Greedy.
There is plenty of money to be made (at least here in CA,anyway) and we can do it responsibly if we care to do so.
It donesnt take that much extra effort :)
Frans
 
Re: Tree Activists

It depends....

If it is a hackberry, chinaberry,etc - YES!!! Kill it!!
Kill it in the name of "a redistribution of the growth potential"


Others depending on health/size of tree - pecan, cedar elm, american elm. Also, I would consider if the tree has severely wounded itself by banging on the house.

If it a really quality tree like an oak, etc, I would and have recommended spending money on a carpenter instead of an arborist.

I enjoy many removals for the challenge of thinking 10 steps ahead and seeing it pay off.

I still stick with the goal of getting more and more pruning/tree care clients and fewer removals only clients. Removals are way too commodity based.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom