For Mrtree and Hammy

[Stephen Blair]

What did you do in the afternoon???????

 

had lasagne with boiled potatoes and veg, custard and sponge and a lovely coffee. walked it off and then went for a pint:thumbup:

 

You do feel threatened:blushing:poor hucky:001_rolleyes:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

nowt wrong with that tree.

 

Do you feel even slightly guilty Stephen? I know i would feel sick for days after that.

 

Do me a favour, see if you can get a few seeds from the ground nearby and send em me in the post. That tree had such strong genetics, would like to plant a few of those in the whip.

[Neil Frost]

That pint glass looks too narrow at the base to support the weight, I suggest you do a 100% reduction on the beer inside!

 

Proper job Stevie

[Stephen Blair]

I don't feel bad tony, 6 nieghbours all cheered the second she hit the deck, theyhave been worried sick about it for years, I work for people, not trees

[Tom D]

nowt wrong with that tree.

 

Do you feel even slightly guilty Stephen? I know i would feel sick for days after that.

 

Do me a favour, see if you can get a few seeds from the ground nearby and send em me in the post. That tree had such strong genetics, would like to plant a few of those in the whip.

 

Big beeches might be a rare thing down your way, but here in scotland they are ten a penny. For every one that comes down due to its proximity to housing there are loads out in the countryside happily growing away, warts n' all.

[Paul Barton]

What is ridiculous about comparing a tree to a building. They are both structures that must withstand the same rules of physics.

 

That's true but a tree is a living organism and the Eiffel tower is a non-living engineered structure. The 'holes' in the Eiffel tower are not there because the Eiffel tower has been degraded in some way, but trees get cavities because they are under attack from other living organisms.

 

I get the point you are making but am not convinced by the analogy.

 

I agree that far too many trees are felled as a knee-jerk reaction to symptoms of decay and I admire your VTA skills and confidence to put your neck on the line and propose to retain decayed trees. It is a shame that the people Stevie was working for were (unnecessarily) alarmed by the tree.

 

Perhaps this case was a case of 'wrong house, wrong place' rather than 'wrong tree, wrong place'. She was a beauty of a tree that's for sure.

[mrtree]

Unfortunately what I see is the arborist/tree service industry creating a climate of fear about trees. There are individuals that work to preserve trees but as a whole the industy is about removals and butchering trees (ie. not proper pruning). We talk about hazard and risk assessment, liability, defects, wind storms, the wrong tree, the wrong place etc. We are able to find lots of reasons to remove trees and the easiest answer is the home owner is scared (or six who stood and cheered). Steven did what the people wanted,fine, but do arborists ever have a duty to do something other than remove? Do the payments on out trucks and chippers drive our business?

 

A thought for another thread but ultimately why do we remove trees? I think the answer is not safety.

[Stephen Blair]

I have no finance or credit within my business, my bank account is healthy for my needs, I feel some consultants feel the need to keep themselves in a job.

[Paul Barton]

Unfortunately what I see is the arborist/tree service industry creating a climate of fear about trees. There are individuals that work to preserve trees but as a whole the industy is about removals and butchering trees (ie. not proper pruning). We talk about hazard and risk assessment, liability, defects, wind storms, the wrong tree, the wrong place etc. We are able to find lots of reasons to remove trees and the easiest answer is the home owner is scared (or six who stood and cheered). Steven did what the people wanted,fine, but do arborists ever have a duty to do something other than remove? Do the payments on out trucks and chippers drive our business?

 

A thought for another thread but ultimately why do we remove trees? I think the answer is not safety.

 

Good post. At the risk of de-railing completely....

 

the arb 'industry' is no more blameless than the arb 'profession'.

 

Most consultant arbs are writing reports on how to shoe-horn new developments in to the last bits of green space in our towns and cities thereby defeating what most of us would agree is the aim: to increase tree cover in urban areas. Under the flag of 'responsible development' and with claims of caring for trees we are squeezing buildings under trees just because we can now use inventive construction methods to allow it without compromising tree roots.

 

I realise this is an aside to the idea of this thread, but I want to avoid any feelings of certain parts of the industry always bashing the climbers on the head with their "superior" knowledge.

[mrtree]

 

I realise this is an aside to the idea of this thread, but I want to avoid any feelings of certain parts of the industry always bashing the climbers on the head with their "superior" knowledge.

 

And there you have a large part of the problem. The oak man vs. the euc man or the climber vs. the arborist or the worker vs. the egghead. We have an industry where the bulk climb, cut and chip and a few offer other services and (almost) never the twain shall meet.