Post-Storm Panic

[Guy Meilleur]

Right after a hurricane, some tree owners get into a real frenzy about removing "hazardous"-looking trees. Some of these trees are in fact very low risk. One homeowner in Richmond wanted every single oak cut down after Isabel; even the ten-foot-tall ones!
Later, she agreed to some being pruned and some being left alone, and some being removed and replaced. It took a couple of days, but they(and their neighbors) were glad they cooled off before the removal crews went crazy and left them with a treeless lot.

Poll Question: Is the customer always right?
1. It's their property; shut up and take the money.
2. Tell them about the value the trees deliver, give your opinion, then do whatever they tell you to.
3. Refuse the work if it's totally senseless.

 

[MasterBlaster]

As a hired gun, I rarely have the opportunity to talk with the customer about the work they want done. Whenever I can, I do my best talk them out of doing unnecessary things. Most of the time I can get them to see the light. Not always, however.

If I had my way, no homeowner would be allowed to remove a pre-established DBH tree without first consulting a CA. Its allready that way in many cities, as well it should be.
A person should not be able to remove a big, fine tree just because they 'don't like the leaves' or it 'might' hurt their house. A consultation with a CA would help to enlighten the homeowner.
Of course, I imagine some bugs would have to be worked-out with this system, but you get the idea.

No unnecessary TD, or damaging trims. Education!

But in the final analysis, until my above idea is enacted, the homeowner is the one who decides what to do on their property. Right? Wrong? Who knows?

I picked option 2, but I still HATE removing a perfectly fine tree for some ignorant reason.

Quite the debatable issue!

 

[Stumper]

Man! Blaster, Not allowed to cut their own tree without approval? Does your last name happen to be Mussolini? Butch Mussolini-American son of Benito. Has quite a ring to it!. Seriously. I hate to see stupid and pointless things done to trees. I advise people and the majority of the time they listen but the trees are theirs. We have too much creeping fascism in our nation. I will NEVER advocate official interference in people's private property rights. -After all, If some doofus is about to destroy a historic tree we can always use our free speech rights to shame them into desisting.

 

[MasterBlaster]

I know it sounds bad, and my message probably didn't come across the way I meant it.
But hey, what else is new?
It just sucks to take out a nice tree for absolutely allmost no reason. But I guess it is all subjective.
I can't say "No, I won't do it." I'ld come back the next day and the tree would be gone. What did that accomplish?

If it was me I would do what I wanted to my tree, so who am I to talk?

 

[jamie]

conservation areas

i dont know what you have stateside but we have conservation areas within towns, to conserve the amenity value of the area, this includes built and naturtal environments, im not too sure of the ins and outs of it all but it covers, buildings and their appearance (planning permission is harder to gain and works have to be carried out in sensitive ways)...

we removed 4 limes in some womans garden in a conservation area, they had been 'pollarded' at 10m (abour 60cmDBH) and were left as fluffy poles, for the mess that was left she was going to be fined the maximum of £20,000 per tree (=£80,000 / about $120,000) in the end the blame was laid onto the other company who had to pay us to remove the trees.....

i know that if people remove trees with a tree preservation order on them they have to pay the value of the development or a £20,000 (whatever is greater) as a fine (im assuming it goes to local authority)

im with MB on this point as i think for large trees people should have to consult a professional and seek planning permission (arboricultural permssion) before removing trees, if it is an imediate hazard im sure that there would be a getout clause, but trees are part of our landscape and shonky work spoils the view

jamie

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

In Williamsburg we talked a lot of people out of doing a lot of work. We could have done a lot more logging then we did, but were feeling bad with what we "had" to do.

I too hate having to kill a perfectly good tree, but then we were there for the money as much as to help our fellow man (That is why we stuck to the rich neighborhoods)

The we did have a 70 ton crane and a $400-500/hr "payroll" that Dave had to make.

 

[Rob Murphy]

After the cyclone?

I heard about a study that was done after cyclone "Tracey" hit Darwin that the buildings in the "treed" areas suffered less overall damage than the suburbs that were more exposed.
Is this an arborist urban myth?
Have you heard any thing simmilar or different?