(no subject)

[Nickrosis]

So, are trees living being that have a genetically programmed form that they should be allowed to achieve?

Or, are trees products of their environments that we can manipulate to form the tree of our liking?

Surely it's some kind of a combination, but we [tree people] often talk about the treatment of a tree as some kind of a violation against what it "deserves." And believe me, I do the same thing everyday. But I'm beginning to contemplate...

Perhaps it is ok to view trees more as vegetation that we can prune and shape because if we don't, they will outgrow/outlive their space, necessitating removal.

I'd elaborate more, but I want to hear what other people have to say. On a thread like this, very little is off topic! PS: All you guests out there browsing: There are 24 of you that need to register and start posting!

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Both...

To me, the care depends on the location and to an extent, the client's wishes.

Tom

 

[Stumper]

Yes both--------But as a practicing arborist in an urban environment ,tree manipulation and vegetation management are important parts of how I use my expertise.:angel:

 

[Guy Meilleur]

The right tree in the right place needs little manipulation.

This refers to <10% of urban trees; the rest must be formed--above AND below ground, to accommodate human needs AND the tree's need to survive in the city.

On the other hand, people's environments must be manipulated to accommodate the tree's needs.

We facilitate the coexistence of people and trees, the way I understand it.

 

[Nickrosis]

It's interesting how our interpretations of genetics and environment play into our daily dealings with trees.

Trees don't have feelings or desires - people do. Yet, we often think of "wronging" a tree by improper care, etc. I do this all the time... What is a fair way to stick up for a tree when someone suggests cutting off a third of a tree's root system when (1) the tree is guaranteed to survive, (2) the tree will not fall over, and (3) the purpose is validated. In my mind, you can reasonably say that it isn't in the best interests of the tree - that even if it doesn't die, you're still infringing on its ability to grow and execute its defense functions.

But for some reason, people still take a spiritual approach to trees. I guess that in the past, I did more so than now. More and more, I keeping thinking them as what they are, living organism incapable of cognition.... But their impact on people transcends molecules and bonds.

Cliff Notes: Trees are good. Arborists care for trees.

 

[NeTree]

Originally posted by Nickrosis
It's interesting how our interpretations of genetics and environment play into our daily dealings with trees.

Trees don't have feelings or desires - people do. Yet, we often think of "wronging" a tree by improper care, etc. I do this all the time... What is a fair way to stick up for a tree when someone suggests cutting off a third of a tree's root system when (1) the tree is guaranteed to survive, (2) the tree will not fall over, and (3) the purpose is validated. In my mind, you can reasonably say that it isn't in the best interests of the tree - that even if it doesn't die, you're still infringing on its ability to grow and execute its defense functions.

But for some reason, people still take a spiritual approach to trees. I guess that in the past, I did more so than now. More and more, I keeping thinking them as what they are, living organism incapable of cognition.... But their impact on people transcends molecules and bonds.

Cliff Notes: Trees are good. Arborists care for trees.

I guess I'm sorta along those lines (or I try to be). After all, a living organism it may be, but I don't feel too guilty eating lettuce or mowing the lawn, either.

The number one defense I can usually give for a tree is where the property in the back of the house goes uphill... ALOT. I tell them the trees are the only thing keeping the hill UP the hill and not in the front yard via the house. (Soil erosion). That usually gives them some pause for thought.

(For those who are ignorant of MA topography, we may not have the biggest of mountains, but there ain't much flatland here, neither.)

 

[arboromega]

both nick, just ike us.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by netree
the trees are the only thing keeping the hill UP the hill and not in the front yard via the house. (Soil erosion). That usually gives them some pause for thought.

You got it Erik; managing soil and water is a key contribution. Air, noise, glare, temp, wildlife, all these and more are improved for us by trees. Sometimes they need help from us that enables them to help us more.

The smarter we are, the more we are symbiotic with the trees.

 

[Treeman14]

One of my favorite stories:

This should be required reading for every school child.

http://www.geekteacher.net/lorax.html

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Since so many of you asked so nicely I'll pipe in here.

Trees are someones property, and we are specialized property managers.

Even in Amerind traditions trees do not have a spirit untill around 100 years, so most trees we work with are not having any "dignity" injusred.

What we do have to do is weigh our actions on the long term survivability of that organisim. if we do nothing, what will happen in ten years? Will large limbs be removed for clearance that would have been smaller if managed now? will one of these large limbs dominate the canopy 20 years from now, or a series of them effextivly girdle the central leads?

These are some of the questions we need to ask along with will it cause a large pocket of decay, or cause root decline.

This discussion is not weather you cut wood for a living or do you manage trees, bit where of the spectrum of manager are you.

Me I try to stay in the middle of the road between a dyed in the wool tree advocate and a practitioner. I've got an open enough mind to admit that we cannot disprove that an organisim that is several centuries old is sentient, all we can prove is that we cannot detect it.

My feeleings in these scenarios, very old healthy trees, is to do as little as possible to meet the owners needs so the plant can stay around a few more generations. I also tell the owners to stay away from the root plate with anything of any weight.

 

[alanarbor]

I think the best way to describe our jobs is to say that we manage the tree/human interface. In the woods, left to their own devices trees largely manage just fine. If a big limb breaks off, or if decay hollows the tree out, it dosen't matter, as long as the tree is producing leaves, and seeds and carrying on it's genetic material, it's a success. For example, the american elm... you don't see many big ones anymore, but you'll find tons of young ones growing wild til about 10" dbh or so when they get DED and kick off. So as far as we're concerned, the tree isn't sucessfull, but the species is still present, and surviving....

When you take the tree out of the forest, or introduce humans to the forest therin lies the problem. We are the "ambassadors" you might say, working to reach a compromise that allows tree/human relations to remain as balanced and harmonious as possible.

 

[Chucky]

But for some reason, people still take a spiritual approach to trees. I guess that in the past, I did more so than now. More and more, I keeping thinking them as what they are, living organism incapable of cognition.... But their impact on people transcends molecules and bonds.



Where's Bob W. when you need him?


Chucky