Tree Time: Relevance?

[ORclimber]

The concept of tree time in the urban environment is a new concept to me since subscribing to this forum. I understand the concept as it has been presented. My question is how relevant is it in how we conduct business?

Aren't the trees planted or left in the urban environment for the enjoyment of people? Is it so bad if people want a lawn, swingset, pool, sidewalk, or view etc. and shorten a trees life to make their own short life more enjoyable?

Where should tree care meet humanity?

 

[treeclimber165]

Wow, great topic!
I guess I'm somewhere in the middle on this. I believe we can (and should) maintain the trees in such a way as to maximize benifit for the owners. But I also feel that some modifications should be made when the owner's ideas will greatly affect the trees. Most trees in my area are short lived, 75 years or less. The exception is our wonderful Live Oaks, which can live 200-400 years. If someone wants to have me remove some big limbs on a mature 40-50 year tree, no big deal. When they want me to hack off huge leads from the magnificent Live Oak so they don't get leaves in the pool, I will do everything in my power to talk them out of it.
There has to be balance, sort of like in a courtroom. I'm the Public Defender who has assigned himself to the Defendant (the tree). Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose. Sometimes I can get a reduced sentence. But I always feel better when I can go home knowing I did my best that day for my client.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Working on Tree Time will change how you approach your view of tree care I think. Doing work by measuring on Human Time will work...for Humans. How much of our lives run on Human time?

A while ago I visited the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC. Olmstead did the landscape design. Along both sides of the front yard of the house tulip poplar trees were planted. I saw pictures of the trees when they were planted just as the house was completed, around 1905 I think. Now the trees are 100 years old and they make a wonderful allee and focus attention on the house. I'll bet this is the picture that Olmstead had in his mind when he designed the landscape. Oh, sure, over the years lightning and a storm have lead to the removal of some of the trees. I was told by several people that the plan is to cut down ALL of the trees because they are dropping some limbs. Now, I realize that I don't know but a thimble full about tulip poplars because they don't grow in MN but When I looked at the trees I only saw about an hour of bucket pruning in each tree to leave them in great shape. Adding a cable or two here and there would be prudent. This type of thinking is Human Time. These trees will live to be three hundred years. At Andrew Jackson's house in Lebanon, TN he planted tulip poplar along his driveway. The trees are at least 170 years old and look good. They are planted in the shape of a guitar. Hollow body not a Telecaster! That management is thinking on Tree Time.

This flows into the idea that we are only borrowing our time here from the future generations. If you believe in walking softly while you're here for the eighty or so years you are operating on Tree Time. Consumer culture is not on Tree Time.

I've had discussions with many people who want to go through great effort and expense to grow a two inch caliper tree into a mature tree in the central canyons of large urban cities. What a tree hostile environment! My idea is to realize that no matter what is done, that environment is going to kill the trees within less than ten years. Why spend valuable tree money in a human environment? Budget to think of the trees in that locale are no more than 5-6 year petunias. Replant as needed and spend the extra money on trees that have a reasonable chance of growing in a place where they live on Tree Time.

Since you're spending time thinking about this, you're already starting to think in Tree Time. Great! Human time is flush cuts so the trunk is "smooth" Tree Time is collar cuts and let the tree grow over the bump. You know the drill.

This might be a major philosophical change for arbos and for sure will be different for our clients. Would you want World Com or Enron make decisions about tree work? They ran on Human Time until the clock crapped out.

Tom

 

[trees4life]

When someone wants to remove a tree, and a by-law prevents this, they don't understand what difference one tree can make. When a developer wants to clear cut 200 acres to put in a subdivision, they don't understand how trees, or even an entire ecosystem can stand in the way.

We have to look at the overall good for the community and the benefits trees provide. I don't understand how someone can order the removal of a healthy, majestic tree without blinking an eye. I don't believe a tree belongs to an individual even if it is on their property. It contributes to the entire community, human & otherwise.

I've seen so many frivolous requests for tree removal, and many don't make sense. Remove a tree so leaves won't litter the lawn/pool/deck/roof. Well, you'd have to remove trees in a very large radius around the property. Wind and leaves do not respect property lines. Many people are ignorant when it comes to insects. I've heard so many requests for removal due to aphids my head spins! They are concerned about the insects biting their children. Often, trees can be pruned to aleviate the problem they are having.

I think it's our job to educate people, and hope we can get people to understand how we, our neighbours, the plant and animal communities, rely on each tree.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Many of us started out in the industry doing removals or working for trimming outfits.

As we matured we started to redifie ourselves and most refer to ourselves as arborist. When asked to define the niche we fill in this industry/trade/profession we say ma say "climber.

A while back I started defining myself as working in tree management. I manage a peice of property for the owner (sorry ma'am, saying trees are mounity property is just too far left for me.) My job is to make the trees needs and the owners desires fit as neatly as possible. Provide them with the the information they need to make good long term desisions. Part property manager part tree advocate (Advocati d'Arboreus to mangle some Latin).

I will first ask people what they want to acheive, then try to work from there. Instaed of branch removal, I try for reduction. I try to get small trees on a management program as soon as possible. Maybe throw thme in to the package for nothing, or a small extra cost.

It all depends on what they owner wants to do with each particular tree. If they do not know then work with it keepings its usefull life in mind. If they will need to remove it in the future, then you do not need to be so carefull, manage it with the surrounding trees growth in mind.

 

[Jay Banks]

Tom, JPS
You both said it, as reputable Arborist/Tree Managers we must place one foot in tree time and the other in human time and bridge the two for the client

In the real world I have to decide if that street tree has any tree time left or has it reach the end in for an urban setting and move on. But the human time smacks you when the crew shows up for the take down and the residents want the tree saved.

It is a balance of both.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

UF mamangement is a whole other ballgame. Muni's have to have a different risk tolerance then the individual owner.

Though one of the larger suburbs got some heat when they decided to remove a whole street full of mature Norway maples because they were near their scheduled SULE. The trees are still there a year later, have not heard andything about it since.

Since I'm not doing anything productive I just called their Parks and Forestry. They will be doing the removal in a more gradual timeframe now. The lady who answered the phone said they have canker and significant decay in them.

Anyone in the area it is in 'Tosa on Pasadina.

 

[Yellowdog]

Tree Time, What concept.

Unfortunately, I have had to do removals I felt sick about. I had to stay in business and feed the baby. Luckily, most people hate the trees I remove. I don't but it helps public relations.

I draw the line when it is really, really stupid to remove a tree. I have said no on occasion. I recently had a job where the customer wanted almost all live oaks and hackberry's gone. I can understand somewhat on overcrowded hackberrys but the owner only wanted to keep his chinaberrys. that didn't make much sense. I finally talked him into leaving some of the "more gooder" trees but was sick to take down so many trees that I thought would be nice just so the horses had more room. I was thinking about the horses too, and thought they might want some more shade in the pasture.

Anyway, as I mature I think more that we are all just visitors in this time and place. When I find artifacts that date to nearly paleo-indian times, I realize that many have walked these deserted canyons and hills before me. It probably looked much different then, or did it. I can't picture an early archaic person hacking down a perfectly good tree to keep leaves out of his rock shelter nor can I imagine them pruning huge limbs off an ancient tree so that they can see their neighbor's buffalo kill site. Instead, I see more harmony and respect for the trees. I see shelter from storms and a general attitude of leave alone. I imagine early arboriculture was practiced in the collection of sticks and dry wood from a lonely oak tree so that the campfire kindled better but beyond that I think everyone was on tree time.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Wow, arborist talk on this forum? I'd almost given up hope.

Tom, Russ Carlson did some consulting work on a tuliptree in MD, deciding its fate to removal after 200+ years. See Liberty Tree on his site www.tree-tech.com For the Biltmore folks to trash theirs so soon in their life shows that they do not understand the ease of maintaining trees thru middle age. They have a staff arborist and don't contract, so he may not be presenting the options in a saleable way.

jps, the maples in tosa my home town sound like they need some good PR and risk assessment. An article in the local paper about the benefits they provide may get peole to take a new look at them. A savvy underemployed arb like yourself may want to ID the canker and measure the decay on the first one they plan to cut, to see if you agree with their criteria. A sample budget showing years gained by dollars spent on mtc. might be useful there.
"Aren't the trees planted or left in the urban environment for the enjoyment of people?"

That's one way to look at it. The other is to see that trees came first, and for people to survive we must make sure they last.

"Is it so bad if people want a lawn, swingset, pool, sidewalk, or view etc. and shorten a trees life to make their own short life more enjoyable?"

Excellent question. My answer is no, it is not bad to remove a tree IF a higher benefit is gained, and tree removal is the best way to gain it. Only after people see every benefit the tree can deliver to their property and lives and consider every way to make that tree work for them can they make an informed choice about how to manage that asset. If cutting happens before the owner is informed about tree care options, that cutting is not done by an arborist, no matter how many ceu's he has or how much gear is on his belt.

I'm saying what rocky said; just using a few more words.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I went out to look at them last summer (this thread is near a year old ) nad they do have canker related decline. Very small terminal growth.....

The protest and news coverage slowed the removal operations, so they will not be clearcutting the street....just yet.

 

[NeTree]

Ultimately, I can make more money in the long run by NOT removing a tree. Sure, I can take it down in a day, but then what?

I can prune and PHC the same tree every few years indefinitely. So if I can talk a homeowner into a regular program and avoid the removal, I will. But the bottom line in business is the BOTTOM LINE.

In the areas I service, most of the trees that are dealt with are the result of PEOPLE planting them, not nature's whim. So yes, if the customer REALLY wants it removed, it goes.

Sometimes it's the other way around. In particular I had a customer last year who asked about a VERY large silver maple and getting some PHC for it. Well, my recommendation was to remove it. Period. It's infested with ALH beetles & carpenter ants, and out of 50" DBH, 48" of that is air. This tree is 10 feet from the road and power lines, and 8 feet from a 350 year old historic farmhouse. Sure, it'd be a great loss of shade, and the tree makes the property, but this tree is doomed and so is the house, as long as the tree remains. The customer wouldn't even consider the removal. I had to walk away. I wasn't about to do anything other than remove it. Well, it's still there (most of it anyways), and last month lost another main lead (which barely missed the house).

There is indeed a fine line between tree care and people care, and it's hard to figure out which is which sometimes.

I will walk away from removals if I feel strong enough about them, and have plenty of times. The best that we can do is educate ourselves and the public, and make the best choices we can.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

A tree service is giong to have to do some removals, unless you are a micro mini with no employees.

Buying tree time really depends on how you define what you do. If you cut wood for money, you still can be a professional. This is the type of person who does what they client wants with thier property.

Some will remember I define the "spectrum" of the industry as property managers on one side and tree advocates on the other. Most of us fall somewhere inbetween.

As the bumpersticker says "It takes 100 years to grow a 100 year old tree". If the clinet wants the tree to last that long, we must work in a fashion that will ton compromise it's chances of doing so. If the tree will be removed in 10 - 15 years, then work with that in mind.