treeseer said:
no matter how many times you say "undesirable", that doesn't make every A. saccharinum undesirable.
Thats true, but we aren't talking about every silver maple, we're talking about this one, or 2. I keep trying to bring you back to the point that not every tree out there is suitable for the average backyard. I will agree that in general these trees are beautiful, But the location proposed would make these 2 trees a marginal, high maintence investment.
"The Silver maple grows rapidly and has been much planted as a shade tree, but is less desirable than many other trees because of its brittleness and susceptability to insects and fungous diseases"
Ohio trees F W Dean, Ohio university press, copyrite 1953, page 105
" The silver maple is much more easily grown from seed than the red maple, but it has a far more irregular tree top. The limbs branch low on the trunk, and these limbs grow very long, giving the tree a loose head of great height, and great horizontal spread. The small branches curve downward, and the twigs are held erect. The wind twists and breaks these great weak limbs, or wrenches them loose from the trunk. It is dangerous to have these trees near the house, for wind and ice storms are constantly snapping off branches large enough to break windows, or knock down chimneys as they fall."
The children's library, Trees J. rodgers, copyrite Doubleday, doran, & co, 1909, 1913 pg 157.
I thought I'd include the second book, as children in the early 1900s were expected to know this information. Yes, they're old books, my passion, and I'll wager the silver maple tree hasn't changed an iota since publication.
treeseer said:
Most tree pruners/managers could make that tree an asset well worth keeping, unless I'm blind.
Without a doubt, but at what price? And wouldn't that money be better spent on a more suitable tree? Or a tree better suited for the area it occupies? Isn't that what we're really debating here? The suitability of a silver maple with obvious defects in close proximity to valuable structures?
I realize an arbo can be held liable for actions taken which harm the tree, or result in property damage, but what happens to the same arbo if they tell the owner to leave them alone, and those trees later cause property damage? That wasn't a loaded question, I honestly don't know the answer, though I suspect I do know what that answer will be when provided.
-Ralph