Anti-Topping Laws

[ClimbMIT]

At the very very least I have always seen these butchered Trees as an opportunity for me as an employer to secure a work order which could extend for 10yrs (depending on plant response), could be 5 yrs. Message is each tree which has been incorrectly pruned due to ignorance does require acute care, to restore vigor and structural stability. Care can be administered throughout all seasons as we know and during dormancy or the "off season", we can stretch this work out to keep busy and fully restore the good health over time which is on our side in most cases. Furthermore, as mentioned above we can take the opportunity to educate masses of people, through newspaper editorials and public forums, internet blogs and local homeshows, to mention a few. Extra effort could be taken as well if we photograph our personal before and after work and most definetely keep accurate track of all work. Start a referral program which will spread better the "good word", people appreciate documentation I have learned. When I remember how noble of a trade Arboriculture is and the history attached to many Trees, I have no issue with alot of the non profit work I find myself doing with my Tree Care co. Yes a point well understood OP> the shear ignorance some people live their lives with, at the end of the day alot of us are only concerned with the bottomline. Often an entire community can appear wartorn almost, with retarded looking Trees because of the mental viral effect a big $Prune Job$ can have on a human being, meanwhile at the cost of our forefathers hard work and determination through study and association with many Noblemen throughout centuries. Building a city with shade for our horses and clean air and protection from the beating sun. Political parties have always been and is where we need to focus our modern attention, educating men and women alike with Authority. Some people in politics have not the slightest idea of how very very complicated incorporating new eco-systems can be, or even enhancing existing eco systems. Here in lies the ultimate opportunity fellow Arborists, I say this with condfidence as we are embarking on a new and exciting way of life, a life where I see the possibilities for an Arborist are endle$$, and a legal small fortune to made for mankind. Measure what you will when will away your measurement, as GREEN is our way and the world agrees now, that it is time for change, we are among the leaders.

Thumbs Up! I think education throughout the United States should be a must. Everyone is going green. What about us? We have a really big part in helping our environment. I know I would love for my great, great, great grand children to see one of the trees that my family and I planted. I don't want to take people's rights away. I just agree with Texas. We have an opportunity to make a profound impact on our ecosystem's future. If we convince just one person that it is unacceptable to top trees, then they in turn may convince another person about how harmful topping is. A Chain reaction starts because of Arborist like us spreading the word. Then in turn we make more $$$ because we are going to be better respected.IMO

 

[imagineero]

I'm one of the 'not too fussed either way' ones. I'm licensed, and there are laws against it in aus and like most of the guys here I do educate and discourage customers. But if they're well aware and want to proceed then it might as well be money in my pocket. I'm a strong supporter of stewardship, but to me the big issue as stewards isn't maintenance of old trees but planting of new ones.

Most of the laws in australia are geared towards retaining old trees with no laws about planting new and nothing to prevent you removing small trees. People talk about the creation and maintenance of urban forest and how it is everyones responsibility, but it isn't shared equally among land owners. If you have a lot of trees on your property, you're stuck with them. If you have none, you dont need to plant any. That's not what I'd call equitable. Due to laws getting tighter all the time, people are removing trees while they're small because they're worried about not being able to remove them in future. It's the equivalent of pursuing a healthcare policy of euthanasing children and spending all the money on senior citizens - no future there. I don't see tomorrows trees being planted, and we have to think in tree time here.

I don't think the topping, poor pruning, poisoning or removal of a single tree is significant, no matter how 'important' of a tree it is. Yeah bad work is counterproductive. It shortens the life of a tree and can creat hazards. But sometimes it is better than complete removal for the reasons that previous posters have mentioned. A big issue in aus at the moment is solar panels. You cant have a lot of trees and solar, which is more eco friendly? Should you top for solar?

Some species respond more favourably than others also. I don't think twice about topping out a row of cypress pines as a hedge. Some of those hedges are up at the 2 story building height or taller. Shouldn't do it, but its common practice.

Shaun

 

[arborjockey]

I'm one of the 'not too fussed either way' ones. I'm licensed, and there are laws against it in aus and like most of the guys here I do educate and discourage customers. But if they're well aware and want to proceed then it might as well be money in my pocket. I'm a strong supporter of stewardship, but to me the big issue as stewards isn't maintenance of old trees but planting of new ones.

Most of the laws in australia are geared towards retaining old trees with no laws about planting new and nothing to prevent you removing small trees. People talk about the creation and maintenance of urban forest and how it is everyones responsibility, but it isn't shared equally among land owners. If you have a lot of trees on your property, you're stuck with them. If you have none, you dont need to plant any. That's not what I'd call equitable. Due to laws getting tighter all the time, people are removing trees while they're small because they're worried about not being able to remove them in future. It's the equivalent of pursuing a healthcare policy of euthanasing children and spending all the money on senior citizens - no future there. I don't see tomorrows trees being planted, and we have to think in tree time here.

I don't think the topping, poor pruning, poisoning or removal of a single tree is significant, no matter how 'important' of a tree it is. Yeah bad work is counterproductive. It shortens the life of a tree and can creat hazards. But sometimes it is better than complete removal for the reasons that previous posters have mentioned. A big issue in aus at the moment is solar panels. You cant have a lot of trees and solar, which is more eco friendly? Should you top for solar?

Some species respond more favourably than others also. I don't think twice about topping out a row of cypress pines as a hedge. Some of those hedges are up at the 2 story building height or taller. Shouldn't do it, but its common practice.

Shaun

Mr.Freeman maybe? I'm sure theirs more then 1 Shuan from Aussie land? Regardless what in the world are you doing in the Blue Mt.s . Great place to visit. I agree completely with replanting. Get new ones going before the old ones die. Older trees are neat but not necessarily environmentally better then young trees(put out less oxygen and clean less air according to a new study. Also when breaking down emit lots of methane) At one time my thinking was, trees that are so old they start to tear themselves apart from core rot, over weighted branches, etc.. and dont have the vigor to help themselves should be cut down. I thought the disease they have could spread into healthy trees. Dont get me wrong Ive cabled and braced some huge historic oak trees back East. They will be around a lot longer but propping grandma up on her crutches only go's so far. The alternative is..... many home owners dont think a TOPPED tree looks that bad but what they do care about is the squirrel, raccoon, and birds that live in the old tree. New way of thinking, If they cant afford to maintain the tree then top it so it doesnt fall apart and start a couple of trees under it to take over. Japan has trees that were wind thrown 200 years ago. They put wood braces under them, cover the holes with tin, and wipe each pruning cut with bee's wax. Not everybody can afford this. I understand leaving a habitat tree in a back yard is a far cry from topping a mature row of historical trees but the LAW IS THE LAW and when put into effect thats it "no topping". If the giant fir trees in the Portland Or. dont get tip pruned 100's of them are going to blow over on houses in the next big storm. All the ISA guys who say dont tip them back are going to #$%^ when they see root balls everywhere. A woods tree that was previously in a stand cant be developed around(taking out all the other trees and put in houses) then be expected to fight the wind on its own.

You guys who wine about costs havent a clue how crappy it is in other country's. Operation costs are through the roof. 90% of the guys who post here dont have the credentials to be in business in Australia. Australia is so over regulated you cant mow your own lawn without a hair folical, DNA, and fecie specimen on file. my opinion is No O.S.H.A, no oversight, no laws for topping trees. If the trees are that important put them on the registry. We have to get around this without regulations.

 

[CJ-7]

My suggestion to start the education against topping would be to hook up with a newspaper reporter, or better yet, a TV reporter and take them around, with a photographer/videographer and show them the good, the bad and the really ugly. Might even get a bit of free publicity out of it.

One of the local tree services here has even bought billboard space to rail against Oak blight and even posted the date range to trim Oaks only when dormant. Maybe you could team up with the other Certified guys and pitch hiring only pros. Take the high road.

 

[swyman]

My suggestion to start the education against topping would be to hook up with a newspaper reporter, or better yet, a TV reporter and take them around, with a photographer/videographer and show them the good, the bad and the really ugly. Might even get a bit of free publicity out of it.

One of the local tree services here has even bought billboard space to rail against Oak blight and even posted the date range to trim Oaks only when dormant. Maybe you could team up with the other Certified guys and pitch hiring only pros. Take the high road.

Like the background, see ya at the dunes!

 

[peetar]

A couple weeks ago I noticed a row of crab apples that where recently topped it was at catholic charities. I stopped and had to find out who did it the women said the lawn guys did it. I tried to explain to her why you dont top trees she said they do them every couple years. I pointed out the decay from where they had been topped before she pretty much said thats how they like them. It made me angry that she wouldnt even listen and I told her the lawn guys are idiots and hacks and they dont know what their doing. Im going to keep an eye out to see whos doing the mowing and tell them they need to stick to mowing!

Dude you have a problem.

You stopped in to the Chatholic Charities (you weren't asked to come out), and got angry at the lady and trash talked their lawn sevice. She told you that they do this every couple of years and thats how they like it..... ,so your going to stalk their lawn guys??

If not are able to spread your gosspel without a smile on your face, and be respectful to those that don't want to hear your gosspel, your doing more harm than good.

I'm sure you said you were an ISA certified arborist, and I'm sure the lady you talked to thinks ISA certified arborists are JERKS.

 

[treeman75]

Dude you have a problem.

You stopped in to the Chatholic Charities (you weren't asked to come out), and got angry at the lady and trash talked their lawn sevice. She told you that they do this every couple of years and thats how they like it..... ,so your going to stalk their lawn guys??

If not are able to spread your gosspel without a smile on your face, and be respectful to those that don't want to hear your gosspel, your doing more harm than good.

I'm sure you said you were an ISA certified arborist, and I'm sure the lady you talked to thinks ISA certified arborists are JERKS.

I didnt say anything about being certified and I stopped to see if a tree service did it. It is on a busy street so if I see the lawn guys I will stop and talk to them about it, I probably know the owner. And yes I will keep spreading my gosspel!

 

[ClimbinArbor]

My company DOES NOT top trees. If we cant get a customer to understand we walk away. Not only is it a crime against nature, but it is professional suicide. If I got caught topping a tree, it would ruin my golf course and parks works.

I feel bad about taking down live trees let alone mutilating one and leaving it to stand.


Still looking for contacts to help me with the legal aspect of this, although im switching over to the political forum.

Keep up the good fight...

 

[rootzone-pro]

Laws against topping??

I have read through every post in this thread. Happy to see there are a few reasonable people. First - to those who want laws against topping. How about laws as to what color pants you can wear, what your kitchen will look like, how many kids you can have, what your wife can paint on her toe nails? Get real. The home owner is just that - they own the property. Your job is to listen to their request, advise them of the consequences and if they insist on it - do your work or refer them to some one who will. Trees do not have rights, they do not speak and their opinion does not count. They are planted by either bird poop, humans or accident. Those that are in a persons yard are normally planted by that person for a specific reason. If they want it topped, it's their tree. Not your tree, not an ISA tree, not the city's tree.
Second -I regularly top Leyand Cypress- by the acre. They are used as a windbreak/hedge. Your law would prohibit this (and normal hedgetrimming). I top huge Douglas Firs and Western Red Cedars that are in peoples views because there are covenants on the property that say they have to keep their neighbors view easement clear. Your way would have these people in court constantly, or would your law negate everyone else's rights? Why not, you have already taken their property rights.
Thirdly - topping might not be your cup of tea but it is better (cleaner) than what happens naturally. It also creates repeat business because it has to be maintained in a large tree to avoid problems later. My customers are made aware of this. They are also told that I recommend removal and replacement over topping. If a tree service in this area did not top trees, the would not last a month. I do not consider myself a lesser human being because I will top a tree. I like my work, I like my trees but I do not worship them.
By the way, we have trees here, plenty of trees, big trees and big, big trees. Some idiots are wanting to bring in the same kind of laws where one has to get permission to remove a tree. Pay money and get a permit. Now what kind of country are we becoming?

 

[imagineero]

+0.00025 on the above.

laws have gone further in australia than just restrioction on topping, some plants are also banned and prohibited form sale. The council can order removal of some invasive species and legally you have to comply. It isn't too hard to see a future where planting of more invasive species is also illegal. I can't see it getting to the point where they regulate the height of cut grass, but who knows?

It's slightly ironic to see tree guys getting so upset about tree topping and wanting to regulate it, considering how anti-regulatory most guys are when it comes to laws regarding how they do their work. Tree climbing is the least regulated of all rope access disciplines, and if similar laws were brought in place in tree climbing as in other roped industries then many common practices would be illegal by workplace safety standards and not covered by insurance. There is a draft in place to bring tree climbing in line with industrial access in australia right now (full body fall arrest harnesses, no more friction hitches etc compulsory) which workplace health and safety is quietly trying to push through. How do you like the law now?

Shaun

 

[ROPECLIMBER]

Lots of cotraversy here San antonio requires a tree maintenace licenses, and you have to sign an affidavid stating that you wont "top" trees also commercial cutters are responsible to legally remove all incurred debris, the term for forest grown trees that have not formed suffecent ancohr roots and reaction wood is "edge trees" and an Arborist involved in the selection of the trees that should be removed or should remain before the construction site ever breaks ground, not after a 1/2 million dollar house is put in would solve alot. The problem with Idustry regulation is that it is not inforced, and if so not by people who understand trees, and with impunnity, trimming trees with out a license here is a $100 written citation, and there is only one arborist in charge of enforcing it. but if my grass is over 12" there are plenty of code compliance guys out to isue a $1200 per day fine that goes against the property taxes of the home owner, but have a hazard tree on a corner lot in a School zone thats OK. Our town is so out dated. While studying for the CA there were only 2-3 tree books all of which were 30-40 years out dated in the San Antonio Public Liabrary, I called the "City Arborist" about this and never recieved a return call.
With the price of the fees to be licensed, and to maintain ISA CA you would think that they (the fee takers) would do public Awareness Commercials , they do inforce new commercial development under tree preservation but not so under residential, just 15 ft above street and 8 feet above public walk, and thats all they enforce, here is a public tree narrow leaf cottonwod in Basalt Colorado that was storm damaged and they wanted to remove it but some didn't want to "Kill it" so they carved it, bushes out in spring and then scalped back not saying this was good, but considering the damage to the tree, and the absorpsion roots with the concrete and pavement the only tree that the remaining uncompacted soil would support is a bush, I think a lot of home owners should have bought a condo,in a high rise then they would be well away from any control over mutilating trees,
Paul
View attachment 226511 carving View attachment 226514

 

[ClimbinArbor]

the last three posts here have been good ones. i personally am very much against being regulated and told what to do. i am just as likely to not do what im told just to feel like im not the governments gimp... however... there are certain laws and regulations i agree with...

let me try this kinda like i do with HOs...

trees are living organisms, just like you, i, the crops and bunny rabbits. now think of trees as energy generating systems. without energy me you the crops and the unny rabbits all die. Trees get energy from leaves and young shoots, the more green mass you cut off a tree the less energy it has. without energy the tree will die. YES some trees at the right time of year have enough energy reserves to recupirate, but the after effects structurally are abhoring.

some people say "oh its just a tree". to which i respond... that tree is a living organism! what makes that life less valuable than that of me you the crops and the bunny rabbits...


Bottom line is this. Its unhealthy, for the tree and the landscape.
We NEED tree laws. Just like we NEED certain other laws. If people are not going to be responsible for themselves and their work then they need to be regulated. We dont let baby rapers walk the streets making money at what they do best... why would we let tree rapers?

 

[sgreanbeans]

It never ceases to amaze me. Come to Arboristsite, argue on why its OK to top a tree. We got some champs here.
Hedge rows and wind breaks, trees planted for that purpose only, fine. The oak in the middle of the park, school yard, public place, back yard, font yard, etc, NO. To top a tree, because it is "repeat business" is pretty damn low. You are profiting by creating a public hazard, epic.
I suppose making people put a fence around their pool is taking away there rights as well then.

 

[Blakesmaster]

It never ceases to amaze me. Come to Arboristsite, argue on why its OK to top a tree. We got some champs here.
Hedge rows and wind breaks, trees planted for that purpose only, fine. The oak in the middle of the park, school yard, public place, back yard, font yard, etc, NO. To top a tree, because it is "repeat business" is pretty damn low. You are profiting by creating a public hazard, epic.
I suppose making people put a fence around their pool is taking away there rights as well then.

Eek, Scott. The last thing we need are more regulations and rules because regulations and rules, moreover, their enforcement, cost money. And the last thing we have is money. I say let the consumer decide, if insurance companies deem a topped tree as risky as an unfenced pool they can force the consumer to deal with it by rate hikes or cancellation. I don't top trees, always find a way to educate the customer, or just walk away, but I don't like the idea of legislating people into compliance.

 

[sgreanbeans]

Eek, Scott. The last thing we need are more regulations and rules because regulations and rules, moreover, their enforcement, cost money. And the last thing we have is money. I say let the consumer decide, if insurance companies deem a topped tree as risky as an unfenced pool they can force the consumer to deal with it by rate hikes or cancellation. I don't top trees, always find a way to educate the customer, or just walk away, but I don't like the idea of legislating people into compliance.

Word homey
To be honest with ya, I really don't care if there is a law or not, I just want them to stop topping. I see it so much in my area, everywhere ya look, there's another one. After a few years, it becomes a monstrosity, epis turn into large, weakly attached branches that suddenly drop, with out any warning. The silver maples are the worst. Great big SOB's hangin over walks, streets, playgrounds, etc.There are so many that are a complete and total hazard here, it'll make yur head spin. As I said before, I don't think that they should impose a law like that on the HO, but on the tree service operator. A simple "code of ethics" signature along with your license app would probably work, top a tree, loose your licenses. If a HO wants to take on the challenge after he is told, by the professionals, that they cannot do the work or they will loose their license. If that doesn't convince them, change their view, then nothing will, and they can go ahead and try and do it themselves. Most realize that they cant, those that try, will try anyway. The problem then, as stated above, is enforcement. In a relatively small town like mine, it would be easy, big city, not so much. Hell, my city is all about it, but never does anything, as the issue is far, FAR back on the burner. I don't like regs either, some are pretty stupid, IMOA, but I think some are needed. If it is hard for bubba to operate, then maybe he will learn the way of the Jedi. Tree cutters, who know it is wrong, but still do it, IMO should be charged with fraud. They are scamming there clients by acting as a professional and lying about what will happen. To say they are "caring" for the tree when they are topping it..............
Like you and Del....and many others have said, it will only change with education, not only with the HO, but with the mis-informed tree cutters as well. The regs would be nice, would speed the education process up real quick.

 

[treeclimber101]

You guys can try and justify it all ya want, will never be enough. If you top, your a hack, end of story

Is hacking half a bradford classify me as a Hacker cause if so then I am a dirty dirty tree hating hacker :hmm3grin2orange: I don't even care I would love to trim every one right to the ground right about mulch line LOL

 

[Blakesmaster]

Is hacking half a bradford classify me as a Hacker cause if so then I am a dirty dirty tree hating hacker :hmm3grin2orange: I don't even care I would love to trim every one right to the ground right about mulch line LOL

Stuff like this is kinda my point, Scott. I also have no problem hacking half off those freaks of nature, but a mature oak, one must handle differently. Relying on our gov't to decided which tree is cut, and how, is not the right approach. Just sayin.

 

[abureels4me]

Now I know what they mean by "tree hugger":hmm3grin2orange: Seriously though, they are just trees. They are not on the verge of extinction. If they were they would outlaw fireplaces. Topped trees are ugly and some but surely not all will die, but to talk about them like they have feelings! Too much.

 

[rootzone-pro]

Tree Rape?

"We NEED tree laws. Just like we NEED certain other laws. If people are not going to be responsible for themselves and their work then they need to be regulated. We dont let baby rapers walk the streets making money at what they do best... why would we let tree rapers?"

This is one of the reasons why you would not get my support for any regulation. To equate tree topping to the rape of babies is way out there. Yes, trees are living organisms, but they are at the bottom of the food chain. They serve many purposes. e.Coli is also a living organism, but I don't see anyone calling for their protection. How's that for a way out comparison? There has to be a balance and a dash of common sense.

 

[computeruser]

Trees are not communal property; they belong to someone and and their owners can do with them as they see fit. Don't forget that, because it is a slippery slope once you start down the other path.

Educate, don't legislate.