Some thoughts from the left side of the pond.
I think John's comment about "mantras" is quite worth listening to. When a
rational and useful bit of guidance becomes a mantra it can loose both its
rationale and its usefulness. The "right tree in the right place" mantra of
course had an underlyoing logic that utilities could pick up to mean
utilities are always in the right place becasue it works for us and trees
are in the wrong place becasue they don't.
It does not seem to me you can take Mr. Arnold's urban design advice about
some trees being in the wrong place without considering that he must mean
there are right places as well and these must be recognized. If trees as
infrastructure can have a wrong place then every other bit can have wrong
places as well.
Peter's note that "if trees aren't culled before their time" seems a key
issue. If we accept that, then what we are really saying is that what we
thought was their "time" really isn't. Well that means we know what their
"time" really is and we cull them at that moment. If the "old tree" lot
want them left until there's not one bit of living tissue, that's their
definition of "time." If the "sooner is better" lot want ritation they will
invent a "time." I think the real point of sustainable management is that
these "time" points will need to be flexible and overlap with other "time"
points. From a purely technical management point of view we have not only
aan age diversity goal but a species diversity goal. and those time points
may vary. And we have a budget timeline. And sumperimpose risk managemnet
decisions (and their impact on budget...opps, must address these dangerous
removals no money left for age class diveristy decsions). And superimpose
on that cost-benefit analyses... it might not fit either of the diversity
profiles exactly but that rather one too many species in an overpopulated
age class has 30 years left in it with minimal cost. Does it really make
sense to cull it now and throw away those benefits. Now virtually any urban
forestry text or program guidance you read notes the importance of public
involvement and sentiment. Not to mention tax payoing support. So overlay
community or even individual sentiments on those technical judgements.
(Just heard a story at the Society of Municipal Arborists conference about a
city in British Columbia which allocated $5CDN for structural support and
interpretive signage for an historic red cedar stump...yeas a long dead
stump). And then there is the development timeline. Cull and replace in
this neighbor hood this year? Well not very good ressource application
since we know the new light rail corridor is coming through in 5 years. And
then there are all those private tree retention decisons. Like the little
old lady who wants to see that tree on her 100th birthday next year (and if
it gets cut down she's likely to leave her vast fortune to the city opera
rather than those oafs in forestry who ordered the tree cut for diversity).
It's about informed decision making, not mantras.
As a technical aside, Prof. Davis Sydnor at Ohio State observes that many
fastigiate forms revert to ordinary form later if life. That doesn't mean
they are not useful as long as they retain form. But it points to one more
need for planned rotation. In fact it suggests that perhaps we should not
be so anxious to cull and replace. Let's say the new housing estate is
going in and evry street will be planted with Arbor perfectum fastigiata
and 4 simliar forms of other species so we have species diversity. So we
have created an even age class neighborhood. And when they all revert to
full width form and become the wrong tree in the right place or they start
to age and fall down, some mantar manager will say "time tp cull them before
their time so let's replace them all." And we do the same thing all over.
Maybe what makes better sense is to leave some of the better older ones for
30 years and then replace them. Keep them beyond their time if you will.
And some of the lesser, older ones... keep them for 10-15 years. That's how
you get localized age diversity. That's how you spread sustainable amenity
throughout the system.
As John notes, let them be place holders.
Happy holidays.
Scott Cullen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Thurman" <thurmanconsult@xxxxxxxxxxx.com>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 5:15 AM
Subject: RE: Arboricultural euthanasia and phallic trees
In London for example, there just isn't much space for trees. It's a rare
luxury and increasingly endangered. If trees aren't culled before their
time
future generations (not us) will notice the drop or gap in amenity.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
