Toppers

[juststumps]

clearance- you are right! this time . I thought it was illegal to club baby seals. Well, in Canada it is not. If it is legal, I have no problen with the fur trade. I do have a problem with the ruin of perfectly good trees- called topping (in case you had not noticed ).

ARTICLE-

Today marks both the opening of this year's Canadian commercial seal hunt—the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth—and the 25th anniversary of the European Union directive banning the trade in fur from newborn seals.

Marcus Gyger
Sealers will begin killing 275,000 baby seals today.

The 1983 directive brought the Canadian seal hunt to a virtual standstill for a number of years.

However, Canadian seal hunters now circumvent the law by killing the pups when they are just a few days older, allowing the legal trade of products from those baby seals in Europe.

"Today the slaughter of baby seals began again in Canada, largely because Europe continues to import seal products," stated Mark Glover, director of Humane Society International/UK.

"A comprehensive ban on seal product trade in the European Union will stop the cruelty of commercial seal hunts and finally meet the expectations of the European Parliament and European citizens," Glover continued.

In 2006, the European Parliament passed a historic resolution calling on the European Commission to immediately draft legislation banning the trade in seal products, regardless of the age of the seal.

The HSUS/Milani
Sealers set sail for slaughter yesterday.

The European Commission then conducted a study on the animal welfare aspects of commercial seal hunting, the results of which should provide the foundation for a ban.

That study found, "in practice, seals are not always effectively killed", seals suffer "pain and distress" during Canada's commercial seal hunt, and "seals may be skinned while conscious."

"Just days ago, we stood on the ice floes with beautiful baby seals still covered in white fur. It is heartbreaking that the commercial seal hunt will begin today, and these pups will be brutally clubbed, shot and skinned to produce fashion items nobody needs," stated Rebecca Aldworth, director of Animal Programs for Humane Society International-Canada.

"The European Union holds the power to right an international wrong by ending its trade in all seal products."

Despite mounting pressure from around the world to end the commercial slaughter of seals, the Canadian government authorized seal hunters to kill 275,000 harp seals in 2008, one of the highest quotas in recent history. The slaughter officially opens at dawn on March 28.

The HSUS
A sealer kills a pup in the 2005 hunt. This is the
largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth.

A large delegation of sealing industry lobbyists traveled to Europe at the request of the Canadian government to lobby against the pending seal product ban.

Recent polling shows the overwhelming majority of Canadians are opposed to the commercial seal hunt, and two-thirds of Canadians holding an opinion support European nations banning seal product trade.

Facts

Canada's commercial seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth, with hundreds of thousands of seals killed annually.

In Canada, more than 95 percent of the seals killed each year are less than 3 months old. At the time of slaughter, many have yet to eat their first solid meal or take their first swim, and they are utterly defenseless against the hunters.

The seals are killed for their fur, which is sold in fashion markets in Europe, Russia and Asia.


Nations around the world have taken action to end their trade in seal products or announced their intention to do so, including Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Panama, Slovenia and the United States.


In Canada, sealers are commercial fishermen, who earn only a small fraction of their annual incomes from killing seals during the off-season.


HSUS is calling upon the Canadian government to end the seal hunt by implementing a fair buyout of the sealing industry, compensating seal hunters for lost income as the slaughter is closed.


Since 2005, The HSUS has urged U.S. companies to avoid selling and serving Canadian seafood in order to convince that country's fishing industry to stop participating in and supporting the commercial seal hunt. Since the boycott began, the value of Canadian snow crab imports into the U.S. has decreased by more than $465 million.


Trade data shows the 2007 value of exports to the U.S. from the Newfoundland fishing and seafood preparation industries decreased by 44 percent compared to 2004, the last year prior to the boycott. For Canada as a whole, the value of exports to the U.S. from the fishing and seafood preparation industries decreased by 22 percent.

AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH TREE TOPPING ????

(does this seal bikini , make my a$$ look fat ?? )

 

[BCMA]

customer buys house,,, nasty tree next to it... wife is due any day now and the tree is over the new nursery..

customer is worried about this KNARLY tree falling on to his house.killing his kid...he asks this to 3 tree guys..

HO to #1: tree guy, i don't want this nasty tree falling on my house killing my kid.. or crushing anything... what would you do ?

#1 "cut it down and plant a new one. it won't hit anything til the kid is out of college !"

HO to #2:tree guy, i don't want this nasty tree falling on my house killing my kid.. or crushing anything... what would you do ?

#2 " take the top out, and shape it up, make it safer than it is now.."

HO to #2: will it hit anything if it fails ?

#2 "might take out the deck railing, and some shrubs "

HO to #3:tree guy, i don't want this nasty tree falling on my house killing my kid.. or crushing anything... what would you do ?

#3 "with proper care and pruning it should be a viable tree for years to come "

HO to #3 : so , you can tell me, it won't fall on my house ,kill my kid, or break anything ?

#3 "with proper care and pruning it should be a viable tree for years to come "

HO to #3:but will it fall on my house ?

#3 "with proper care and pruning it should be a viable tree for years to come "

HO to #3:but will it fall on my house ?

#3 "with proper care and pruning it should be a viable tree for years to come "

HO to #3: I really don't care about years to come !!! i want my family safe !!!

Honey, call those other two guys !

All large trees pose a certain amount of risk. If you want zero risk, you do not have a tree. As simple as that. I have removed trees for this very reason. People wanted zero risk. The trees gave them zero benefit, only liability in their minds. These clients are few and far between. This is a rare case.

 

[juststumps]

Better cut them all, those trees will kill someone. Better not walk outside, the sky could fall too.

weird thing is that they don't care if it falls in the yard.... they get a little worried when the house is involved , for some reason..... could be cause grass is cheap....

 

[clearance]

AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH TREE TOPPING ????

(does this seal bikini , make my a$$ look fat ?? )

Not a lot, its just important for you uneducated people out there to get the correct idea, lest you go astray. Club, club, and club away.:deadhorse: :notrolls2:

 

[juststumps]

All large trees pose a certain amount of risk. If you want zero risk, you do not have a tree. As simple as that. I have removed trees for this very reason. People wanted zero risk. The trees gave them zero benefit, only liability in their minds. These clients are few and far between. This is a rare case.

maybe where you live,, but where i'm working,, they could give a rats a$$ about a tree, verses the 1.5+ mil house ,,,or their kids !!!!!!!!!

 

[Rftreeman]

All large trees pose a certain amount of risk. If you want zero risk, you do not have a tree. As simple as that. I have removed trees for this very reason. People wanted zero risk. The trees gave them zero benefit, only liability in their minds. These clients are few and far between. This is a rare case.

a rare case???? 85% of my work is removals due to the fact that the client fears it falling and tearing up something or worst. maybe the reason you think it is rare is because you try to talk them into keeping it and just working on it so they never call you back because why, YOU DON'T GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT..............

 

[BCMA]

a rare case???? 85% of my work is removals due to the fact that the client fears it falling and tearing up something or worst. maybe the reason you think it is rare is because you try to talk them into keeping it and just working on it so they never call you back because why, YOU DON'T GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT..............

Nearly all of our clients have a respect for their trees and landscape, and can see the benefit of preserving them.

What our client’s want is professionalism, expert advice, and quality service. There happens to be more options in tree work than removals. We first assess the tree for hazards and risk, and explore the options. The client always makes an informed final decision, and have the confidence that what they are doing is right.

As far as people not calling us back- I have no idea what you are talking about. At this point, we have about 5,000 people working for us, and a large backlog of work.

 

[treeseer]

85% of my work is removals due to the fact that the client fears it falling and tearing up something or worst. .

I live very close to you and 85% of my clients' fears are controlled by tree care that makes the tree safer.

Maybe if you get more practice and the right equipment you can do and sell pruning and cabling effectively.

All tree owners want is a reasonable level of safety. An arborist who can deliver that without removing or topping the tree can easily compete with the hacks.

 

[BC WetCoast]

Registered profesional foresters working with forest scientists developed this practice. It is paid for by the timber producers. The trees are mostly over 100', so a 6"-8" top is not cutting the tree in half. As you say, you have a lot to learn, as all the stuff you have put up here about courses, speeches, whatever, has nothing to do with treework way out in the bush.

Clearance, I chuckle at the irony here. You accept this prescription developed by a professional forester (me being one) but probably would have rejected it if it was developed by a Cert Arborist (me being one of those as well).

Just for the record, as a forester, I am looking at the health and welfare of the forest (as defined as a group of trees) and the ecosystem they grow in (ecosystem having temporal and spatial components) and have little concern for the individual tree. Along the edge of a newly exposed cutblock, I'm expecting a minimum 10% blowdown. Whereas as an arborist I'm concerned with the health and welfare of the individual tree.

I know this hijacks the thread slightly, but many of the people I read about who are slamming Cert Arborists also tend to be the ones who complain the unqualified, uninsured, operators. It seems to me that one of the ways to keep those people either out of the market or require them to meet the standard is to require all tree people to meet some form of certification. This doesn't necessarily have to be ISA, it could be trades qualification (such as Clearance's Utility Arborist trades qualification or plumber, electrician, pipefitter, etc), a technical qualification such as surveyors, medical techs or a professional qualification such as foresters, doctors, lawyers, dentists or accountants. As a professional forester, my title (professional forester) and practice (defined in legislation) is protected by provincial legislation (BC Foresters Act) and self regulated. An analogy would be to have governments legislate the ISA to be a governing body for the industry (instead of a voluntary body) and anybody undertaking tree work must be accredited by the ISA.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO ARGUE THIS, ARGUE THE CONCEPT OF GOV'T IMPOSED CREDITATION AND NOT THE MERITS OF THE ISA. I only used it as an example.

 

[BC WetCoast]

a rare case???? 85% of my work is removals due to the fact that the client fears it falling and tearing up something or worst. maybe the reason you think it is rare is because you try to talk them into keeping it and just working on it so they never call you back because why, YOU DON'T GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT..............

Most of the municipalities around here have a fear of loss of the urban forest and the benefits they provide. Most of them have tree cutting bylaws. In the City of Vancouver, all tree removals larger than 8" require a permit. All trees removed require either a 1 for 1 replacement (for trees of the same mature size) or a 2 for 1 replacement (for trees that are significantly smaller).

 

[ropensaddle]

Most of the municipalities around here have a fear of loss of the urban forest and the benefits they provide. Most of them have tree cutting bylaws. In the City of Vancouver, all tree removals larger than 8" require a permit. All trees removed require either a 1 for 1 replacement (for trees of the same mature size) or a 2 for 1 replacement (for trees that are significantly smaller).

Yeah, then two hurricanes come in back to back and guess
what trees fail. So then; if you told the customer we can trim
for windsail, install cables to anzi guidelines and the tree fails
and injures their little girl, then is; anzi responsible or the cable
manufacturer or the arborist? I bet my business the arborist is
going to take the hit because he was there and did not take
this tree out.

 

[clearance]

Clearance, I chuckle at the irony here. You accept this prescription developed by a professional forester (me being one) but probably would have rejected it if it was developed by a Cert Arborist (me being one of those as well).

Just for the record, as a forester, I am looking at the health and welfare of the forest (as defined as a group of trees) and the ecosystem they grow in (ecosystem having temporal and spatial components) and have little concern for the individual tree. Along the edge of a newly exposed cutblock, I'm expecting a minimum 10% blowdown. Whereas as an arborist I'm concerned with the health and welfare of the individual tree.

I know this hijacks the thread slightly, but many of the people I read about who are slamming Cert Arborists also tend to be the ones who complain the unqualified, uninsured, operators. It seems to me that one of the ways to keep those people either out of the market or require them to meet the standard is to require all tree people to meet some form of certification. This doesn't necessarily have to be ISA, it could be trades qualification (such as Clearance's Utility Arborist trades qualification or plumber, electrician, pipefitter, etc), a technical qualification such as surveyors, medical techs or a professional qualification such as foresters, doctors, lawyers, dentists or accountants. As a professional forester, my title (professional forester) and practice (defined in legislation) is protected by provincial legislation (BC Foresters Act) and self regulated. An analogy would be to have governments legislate the ISA to be a governing body for the industry (instead of a voluntary body) and anybody undertaking tree work must be accredited by the ISA.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO ARGUE THIS, ARGUE THE CONCEPT OF GOV'T IMPOSED CREDITATION AND NOT THE MERITS OF THE ISA. I only used it as an example.

I said windfirming was developed by foresters. That does not mean I have a lot of respect for rpfs. Some of them are ok, but what they did in the past was really cool, now it seems the favorite activity of many of them is to drive around, and around, and around in green pickups. Have you ever read the book by Ian Mahood-Three Men and a Forester? He lays out what foresters did in the past and how they have become, for the most part, pen pushers. Interesting book, in many ways.

 

[BCMA]

Yeah, then two hurricanes come in back to back and guess
what trees fail. So then; if you told the customer we can trim
for windsail, install cables to anzi guidelines and the tree fails
and injures their little girl, then is; anzi responsible or the cable
manufacturer or the arborist? I bet my business the arborist is
going to take the hit because he was there and did not take
this tree out.

You will not be held liable just because you do not remove or top every tree you work on. You may be liable if you don't operate with the laws of business operation, or by providing tree work that is not according to industry standards.

 

[clearance]

You will not be held liable just because you do not remove or top every tree you work on. You may be liable if you don't operate with the laws of business operation, or by providing tree work that is not according to industry standards.

But you will be morally liable when the p.o.s. tree Treeseer and BCMA talked you into saving instead of sawing down comes crashing into the little girls house. All this b.s. makes me sick, save the trees, save the trees, look, new trees come along all the time, for f---- sake:monkey: .

 

[Rftreeman]

Nearly all of our clients have a respect for their trees and landscape, and can see the benefit of preserving them.

What our client’s want is professionalism, expert advice, and quality service. There happens to be more options in tree work than removals. We first assess the tree for hazards and risk, and explore the options. The client always makes an informed final decision, and have the confidence that what they are doing is right.

As far as people not calling us back- I have no idea what you are talking about. At this point, we have about 5,000 people working for us, and a large backlog of work.

so who do you work for anyway, must be a big company? My clients make informed final decisions also and we don't care how many people work at the same place as you or how much backlog work you have, hell we all have that right now.

I live very close to you and 85% of my clients' fears are controlled by tree care that makes the tree safer.

Maybe if you get more practice and the right equipment you can do and sell pruning and cabling effectively.

All tree owners want is a reasonable level of safety. An arborist who can deliver that without removing or topping the tree can easily compete with the hacks.

so now you're saying if we REMOVE trees we are a hack, if a client calls me and wants a tree removed then that's what they get, I'm not going to waste their and my time by trying to sell them what's "right" in your or any one else's book.

Most of the municipalities around here have a fear of loss of the urban forest and the benefits they provide. Most of them have tree cutting bylaws. In the City of Vancouver, all tree removals larger than 8" require a permit. All trees removed require either a 1 for 1 replacement (for trees of the same mature size) or a 2 for 1 replacement (for trees that are significantly smaller).

we don't need permits to remove trees here unless it is in a historical district but if I need one they are no problem to get.

Yeah, then two hurricanes come in back to back and guess
what trees fail. So then; if you told the customer we can trim
for windsail, install cables to anzi guidelines and the tree fails
and injures their little girl, then is; anzi responsible or the cable
manufacturer or the arborist? I bet my business the arborist is
going to take the hit because he was there and did not take
this tree out.

I couldn't agree more, the arborist would most likely in up in court.

 

[ropensaddle]

You will not be held liable just because you do not remove or top every tree you work on. You may be liable if you don't operate with the laws of business operation, or by providing tree work that is not according to industry standards.

Respectfully I told you I have not topped a tree except for powerlines
or views. I resist on views but customer sets that stage. I cma by writing
in my estimate my recommendations, if they chose different I do it. I don't
have five thousand employee's, just me that's right me my wife some days
and plenty equipment, does that make me a hack in your view to be bullied
out of business by gov intervention?

 

[Climbing Cutter]

The only thing worse than topping is fascist treehuggers that want more government regulation. KEEP AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE. :censored:

 

[Nailsbeats]

The only thing worse than topping is fascist treehuggers that want more government regulation. KEEP AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE. :censored:

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[lxt]

that is real funny right there, coming from a guy who used the word "Certified" in his newspaper ad, but yet has no certifications

Dear Mike.... I am a certified Line clearance tree trimmer/tree trimmer!! by the dept of labor!! perhaps you should stick to trapping!! wonder why state park service uses my company and not yours?? think about it!


LXT................

 

[jrietkerk]

The only thing worse than topping is fascist treehuggers that want more government regulation. KEEP AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE. :censored:

I'd say that fascist land developers are the worst of all. Here's a scenario that plays out in both our countries; a neighbourhood has 2 or 5 acre treed lots, or even smaller. They are part of a greenbelt, or development permit area. A developer comes along, applies for a variance to subdivide, and put in several houses on each lot. The community is skeptical, but local government allows the developer to go ahead with conditions - many key trees are to be left, and protected during construction. After all, when the community was planned, the lots were left big and treed for 'green infrastructure'. (trees make oxygen, moderate climate and water table etc). The developer made a strong argument for the variance, appealing to people's property rights at community hearings - "I own the land, I can do what I want" Some people and politicians are probably paid off or intimidated. So it begins. Turns out, the municipality can't monitor the construction enough, and the developer really doesn't care, so the trees get demo'ed during construction. Many extra trees are removed to make life easier for the construction crews to keep costs down. Any intervention by the community or local government is met with evasiveness and intimidation by the developer. They are mature old trees, so don't show drastic signs of decline until several years later. The developer sells for big bucks and moves on, because he doesn't live there. The houses look great at first, framed by nice old trees. The new homeowners eventually want the trees removed, but are told they need to pay for a permit, and replace the trees, on their own property! They flip out! They don't understand that the developer screwed them around by not protecting the trees in the first place, and the local government was co-opted by its own electorate through the developer's rhetoric. So the trees are removed as hazards, and the replacement trees the bylaw demands are neglected out of spite by the homeowner, or are replaced with dwarf conifers. Again, local government can't regulate the replacements. So the greenbelt slowly disappears, and the green infrastructure is gone, and the entire look of the community has changed. Property values begin to decline. The bats and swallows that used to live in the trees disappear, so the residents are overrun with mosquitos, and start spraying everything in site. The soil level degrades after the stumps and roots of the once protected trees are removed and sod is installed with irrigation. And lots of fertilizer The local trout slowly disappear. . . Apply this scenario across a continent, or several continents, throw in some big agriculture and some Portuguese and Spanish, and you get what we have now - Polar Bears eating garbage from a landfill. Is there room for some regulation anywhere in this picture?
Sorry, this was a tread about topping. We are all on the same page probably - sometimes its the only answer. But its a stretch to start slinging the 'C' word around when the concept of a tree protection bylaw comes up.
So, to avoid further rants, if any tree in this scenario is near a powerline or over a little girls bedroom, it has to go, no question. Only a CUA will do the work near the high voltage because they are the only ones qualified. No one will tell them how to do it.