Maple tree holocaust

[Tex MacRae]

We bought a Victorian house in the Village of Dundee, Ny last fall. Yesterday, the Village sent out a tree service, which started dropping massive maple trees in the Village. They're still at it today. They started with a maple tree in front of our house.

Is this a hazard tree? The first photo is the best before picture I had of the tree. The second photo is my tree in the logging truck.

This url is my weblog post about it with more pictures.

 

[grnlfclimber]

hazardous tree

The only thing I could see is the side walk was breaking up from the root system, and the large cavity of decay in one of the pics. I don't know if it was "hazardous" but it looks to me that in the long run it was a good decision to remove it. If that is the reason.

It is however a great tragedy that the village was not consulted prior to the removal. Is there not a board or neighborhood association that makes these decisions? If not there should be!
By village I mean the homeowners.

 

[Tex MacRae]

No, there was no notification. In my research, it seems that most arborists say that 60% live is sufficient, and that's in the main trunk. Also, the decay was in one branch and only one part of a double trunk. You can see that the stump and lower 15 feet or so of the trunk (ed. - both trunks) is completely solid.

I'm going to try to get the guy who marked these trees to make some sort of justification. How likely is it that this little town suddenly had all these "hazard trees?" They're still cutting trees today.

 

[grnlfclimber]

Sounds to me like there is a greater plan happening here. I dont know that a town would agree to remove so many trees at one time unless it was either costing them more to maintain them or there is a plan to improve the road and sidewalks because of the historical placards you spoke of. Maybe they are planning to repair the walks and streets to bring in revenue and tourist it looks like a beautiful area.I have seen where cities have done this before so that people will come and see the historical markers,and shop in the area.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Looks like it was a good call on the removal.
I attached an edited version of the picture you posted to show the sound wood on this stem.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

When an arborist determins the strength of a tree, he can't just look at one point and decide on that. He needs to look at the weakest point.
The area where the cut was showing all the decay was really bad, and that was most likely not the worst cross section. Just because the base was solid, doesn't mean the tree was safe.
To remove the stem, if that was what the decayed section was, would lead to problems down the road for the rest of the tree, because a mature tree can't ever recover from having a cut that large. It will just get worse and create a liability for you, the town, and the arborist.
People love their trees, and that's great, but sometimes you have to just let go, and replant a really nice new tree. Age diversity in an urban forest is just as important as it is in a natural forest.

 

[Husky288XP]

From the cross-section of the bottom of the bole, decay has started down to ground level. You can see the discoloration of the heart due to the heart rot of the above stem.

Instead of crying and whining about the tree removal, try to see if the township will aid in replacing the tree.

 

[Tex MacRae]

The question is: Is this a "hazard tree?" Is failure imminent or not?

 

[Husky288XP]

Three key items of a hazard tree eval:

1. Is there a TARGET? Yes, cars, houses, passers-by, etc.

2. Is there a POTENTIAL for FAILURE? Yes, advanced decay.

3. Is there an ENVIRONMENT that could lead to failure? Yes, we have many possible targets, decay, natural senescence, etc.

= REMOVAL TO ABATE HAZARD!!

 

[treeseer]

I totally agree with Mike, :

That's a lot of rot. Still you're right to hold the arborist/decision-maker's feet to the fire on their means and methods of risk assessment. Don't let em bs you.

Husky your steps are a little off. Every tree has potential for failure, so do you recommend removing every tree you see?

 

[Tex MacRae]

Still you're right to hold the arborist/decision-maker's feet to the fire on their means and methods of risk assessment.

No arborist was involved in the tree removal of the past few days.


Mike said, upthread....sometimes you have to just let go, and replant a really nice new tree.

Well, I don't think I could bring myself to plant anything anywhere the Village people claim jurisdiction over. It was far too traumatic to walk out and see this tree half chopped down, with no warning at all. If I commit myself to caring for a tree, I'd prefer to do all I could to save it.

I'm also worried that they chopped this tree down and my neighbor's as well, so all the shade-loving shrubbery - mostly rhododendrons - around our houses may be at risk as well as all the other old trees nearby.

 

[Husky288XP]

Well treeseer,

Facts are facts, "call em as you see em", you should not hold the arborist's feet in the fire. Now this would be a totally different thread if that tree landed on Tex's car, house, child, etc. Tex would be all about the pathology of decay fungi, hazard abatement, legal issues, and the list goes on.

But I am not a BCMA, just a lowly Cert. Arborist and I stand by my three ideals.

The only thing the township is guilty of is lack of communication!!!!!

 

[Husky288XP]

As for that tree making any lumber, that would be a big NO. All of those logs are culls, through log grading they yield less than 50% sound wood.

 

[Tex MacRae]

Tex would be all about the pathology of decay fungi, hazard abatement, legal issues, and the list goes on.

No, I wouldn't. I'm reasonable and not particularly stupid. I'm willing to accept risks, and I despise the type of person who thinks they should be provided a risk-free environment and spends half their life cringing in irrational fear.

 

[begleytree]

You have arborists from all over looking at these pics, and agreeing that the tree needed removed. so I'd call that point moot.
I realize what you're really after, so here it is. I know that the courts have upheld prior notification for anything other than emergency work. As far as I know, this advanced notification is either set at, or generally abided by, 24hrs min.
That may not apply to your circumstance, or to your state, or location. I know it does here, for anything. I do the tree work for the local township here (unincorporated town of 15K, and the money center of the county) unless a tree will fall in the next few hours, I MUST contact the homeowner prior to ANY work being done. This goes for utility clearance here also.
-Ralph

 

[Husky288XP]

Don't take my statements out of context.

If that tree killed your child, wife or husband, etc. Don't tell me you would not try to raise the devil with the township, and their lack of a hazard abatement program.

 

[Tex MacRae]

I realize what you're really after, so here it is.

No, you don't. I'm really after knowing if that tree was a "hazard tree" or not. I appreciate the arborists here weighing in on that issue.

The lack of notification just caused me to panic because I didn't have a chance to see if the tree could be saved or not before it was killed.

 

[Tex MacRae]

If that tree killed your child, wife or husband, etc. Don't tell me you would not try to raise the devil with the township

Really, I hate to see an arborist thinking that way. I hate to think trees are removed to prevent someone "raising the devil" with some bureaucrat.

What tree can't kill someone?

 

[begleytree]

I'll bet I do. litigation aside, you wanted proir notification, in order to verify the tree's condition yourself. Perfectly understandable, and not that much to ask for, imo. Regardless the city arborist's knowledge, his opinion is generally held as suspect due to his employer. You get 2nd opinions about medical procedures, why should the care of your property value and/or trees be any different?
-Ralph

 

[Husky288XP]

Really, I hate the ignorance of some homeowners.