What were they thinking

[Boa07]

i cant help but think, what Thomas Jefferson or Paul Revere or john Adams, would have done if some government told them they needed a permit to cut down a tree. although one can make a pretty safe guess.

I would hope that your founding fathers had the intelligence and foresight to recognise our greater understanding of the role the urban forest plays in maintaining the kind of environment that people need to survive in every way, I suspect that they would embrace that knowledge and help to protect what every generation deserve to recieve, without compromising basic freedoms...but then thats just my opinion.

 

[TaoTreeClimber]

Your right boa. They should have simply taken out the crystal ball and forsaw two centuries into the future and realized that someday when our country has gotten this populated, and technology and legislation had evolved as much as it has. That the Constitution should still protect everyones right to do what ever they want to as long as its on thier own property. I think our founding fathers had more on thier plate than having to worry about petty issues than if some one wishes to remove a tree on thier property. Fortunately they did have the forsight to come up with a thing called admendments to our Constitution to cover anything they missed when they drew up that piece of paper over 200 years ago.

Kenn

 

[Boa07]

The point I was trying to make mate was that if they were alive today I don't think their reaction would be that suggested by BLACKeR thats all, not complicated nor crystal ball gazing.

 

[TaoTreeClimber]

I agree with ya. Im not trying to take a shot at ya. I believe that our founding fathers were prudent, sensable men that would have reacted to this particular issue in a prudent and sensable manner. Sometimes my sarcasim goes a little above and beyond.

Kenn

 

[Boa07]

and sometimes I'm guilty of doing exactly what I find annoying in others on forums reading into posts what is not there sorry.

 

[TaoTreeClimber]

Its all good Mate. Cheers

Kenn

 

[BLACKeR]

The point I was trying to make mate was that if they were alive today I don't think their reaction would be that suggested by BLACKeR thats all, not complicated nor crystal ball gazing.

with all due respect you couldn't be more wrong. the constitution was written for one reason limiting government. the US constitution does not tell Americans what they can do it tells the government what it cant do. and there is an amendment that says the government cannot meddle with peoples private property. we don't have to guess what the founding fathers would do. they wrote a whole list of rights people are entitled to. my freedom and the freedom of my neighbor if far more important than any tree.

 

[Boa07]

Well I guess if thats how you feel ok...

I'm not interested in argueing the merits of your or my political perspective thats what the off topic forum is for.....what I am interested in is talking about how we can make management of the urban forest more effective and inclusive of the people who live in and often own the property that makes up the urban part.

We can never get total agreement even in very small communities about the extent of protection we should give to the trees that grow around them, but we have to help develop consensus on the values they put on those trees and just how much resource (time, people, water, space above and below and yes money) as a community we will give up for our trees.

The experience of various large communities in the US is the basis for nearly all the progressive work I see happening, and is the incentive behind much of the hard leg work being done by many here in Oz...no approach is universal and no system full proof or even fool proof!

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

If the land contained within it, some other Natural wonder besides a large tree; like a pond, river, mountain etc. should a person have total rights to it too? We need to think more "Indian"; we use the land but have stewardship over it; not this complete ownership to disfigure. In these terms we "borrow the land from our children, not inherit it from our parents"; not our totally lysdexic view we have.

The trees are used by many things; and are part of the Nature; they are a living thing; not dead wood yet to staple, fold and mutilate. Nothing else covets them so. Of course this all won't wash at every corner in our society; but there needs to be places where it does. And when the coin falls that way; we should embrace it too; realize it's good points in the balance; go to a place without a waterfall, cliff, river, eagles or tree and build etc.

If our kind was some insect, ivy, critter etc.; we would be accused of rabid infestation and destructive practices.​

 

[BLACKeR]

perhaps i have the strong stance i do because where i live we have no tree protection laws, and yet all our streets are lined with massive native hardwoods. i have an oak in my back yard, thats 6 ft DBH. the land scape here is littered with trees. so this may be a locational thing. when someone says urban forests, i just laugh. the branches meet in the middle of most streets around here. theres no need to protect trees people here like them. i dont know why people in other locations have such a problem with trees, but i still dont think its in my right to tell them they cannot remove a tree they want.

 

[masiman]

i dont know why people in other locations have such a problem with trees, but i still dont think its in my right to tell them they cannot remove a tree they want.

I agree with your sentiments blacker, but if there were tide change in your community and people took down say 50% of those gorgeous trees, your community might consider enacting tree protection ordinances.

I can't stand HOA's but they do serve a useful purpose....sometimes .

 

[badhabits]

If our kind was some insect, ivy, critter etc.; we would be accused of rabid infestation and destructive practices.​

This is so true when you look at what we are doing to everything.
Now don't get me wrong I am not a tree hugger, but I would like for my grandchildren to have some of the things that I enjoyed when I was a growing up, Hunting fishing and hiking in the woods. The way it is now most of the places to do this are disappearing, and without some rules there won't be any left.

 

[BLACKeR]

if there were tide change in your community and people took down say 50% of those gorgeous trees, your community might consider enacting tree protection ordinances

if 50% of them were taken down, one would have to assume that removing all your trees is at the very least a 50-50 issue. for an actual 50% of the trees to be removed it would in reality mean that more like 80% of the people wanted all their trees cut down, and only 50% could afford it. so if 80% of the people want their trees cut down. your not really helping the community by protecting trees. your only making happy 20% of the community, and that would be a massive failing. i suspect it would be more like 5% of the people would want a tree removed. 5% would reflect much more accurately on my observations as well. if all tree ordinances were removed from the books tomorrow. how many trees do you think would be taken down? i bet you would get a 1 week boost in business from the 5% of people that have a tree that they just don't like. after that it would be business as usual. and i can almost guarantee 3% of that 5% would plant a new tree. as for leaving a planet the way we had it for our grand kids. i don't really think i want that. someone born today has cleaner air, cleaner water, and more wildlife than i did when i was a kid. 70 years ago there weren't deer or trees in western NY. when my grandfather got back from WWII he had to drive several hours to hunt deer in NY. and then you could only shoot bucks. a couple years ago we took 5 off his farm Thanksgiving day, before dinner. things are better, people are better, and if you cannot see that i feel sorry for you.

 

[BLACKeR]

i hope no one sees this as flaming or unessary arguement. i love differing opinions, and find the freedom to share them invaluable. this is all in good nature on my side.

 

[badhabits]

70 years ago there weren't deer or trees in western NY. when my grandfather got back from WWII he had to drive several hours to hunt deer in NY. and then you could only shoot bucks. a couple years ago we took 5 off his farm Thanksgiving day, before dinner. things are better, people are better, and if you cannot see that i feel sorry for you.

Here in Virginia the area to hunt if you do not own land is shrinking, hunting in the national forest of which there is plenty is a hazard to ones life with the idiots out there. Near where I live developers bought 8000 acres of private land to develop housing on, this was prime hunting area that the old owners gladly gave permission to any one who had the courtesy to ask. People are better off in some ways but some things are disappearing.

Its good to have people with different opinions, it makes you think.

 

[BLACKeR]

i hear ya with the private land access shrinking. even the land thats still available, access is being cut down. all i can say is if its valuable to you snatch up whatever you can afford while its still available. when my grandfather dies i plan on buying his place its 150 acres. it will lord willing stay in my family till the end of time. it wont be easy to afford it but im willing to sacrifice to get it.

 

[badhabits]

i hear ya with the private land access shrinking. even the land thats still available, access is being cut down. all i can say is if its valuable to you snatch up whatever you can afford while its still available. when my grandfather dies i plan on buying his place its 150 acres. it will lord willing stay in my family till the end of time. it wont be easy to afford it but im willing to sacrifice to get it.

AMEN Brother
All of us need to what we can.

 

[masiman]

i hope no one sees this as flaming or unessary arguement. i love differing opinions, and find the freedom to share them invaluable. this is all in good nature on my side.

Blacker, my only point was that if your environment took a drastic change due to development, it might prompt your community to look for a way to slow down the development or change. 50% was just a number. Your community would have to think about when that threshold would be reached. I think you were saying that you would not want to regulate development or change. But I bet there are many in your community that would if drastic visible and economic changes took place. Where that tipping point would be, I don't know.

I'm in VA like badhabits. I talk to some of the "old" timers in this DC suburb and they talk about how our area use to be hunting grounds. This is only 30 years ago. I told an old buddy where I was moving and he said we were moving to the boondocks. It was when he lived here 20 years ago. Now, it is considered close in. I look out west in Loudon County where THALL is. They have gone back and forth on how to control the development. No new lots under 10 acres and such. Money talks at some point and the development happens. If I had my choice, I'd live somewhere like you Blacker. DC is nice but way too crowded for me, as many NE corridor cities are.