🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <AE4BDCE89668FA727@tygh.demon.co.uk>, Geoff Dellow
<geoff@tygh.demon.co.uk> writes
>In connection with this issue I'd like to discuss the conflicting issues of
>SAFETYor VISUAL AMENITY (beauty) as it would be called technically.
>
snip
>But no, unthinking people want things to be "perfectly "safe which is
>impossible. 
>
>If we set ourselves a level of risk that we found acceptable then we could
>make some sensible decisions.
>
The level of risk is set by the courts rather than by you or me. A judge
will decide whether the owner of the tree took 'reasonable' care to
prevent injury or whether he/she was negligent in their duty of care.
This might sound like a sterile objection but this is what you are up
against. This is the reason why the NPA want to fell the trees.
Unfortunatly nobody can tell you what is 'reasonable' (beyond certain
obvious points), because the judge will decide the case on its
individual merits.

>In the specific case of the felling of these trees I would have thought a
>much more logical approach was to examine the past history of trees/
>branches landing in the road and then determine the average traffic on the
>road either by car or on foot etc and from this we could determine the
>likely probability of accident. 
>
>If this was greater than say one in a million then we did nothing and said
>that the trees were acceptably dangerous !  !
>
>We would know that the chances would be higher in the middle of a storm but
>we might still be willing to take a risk. We might have a notice that said
>1:100,000 risk of falling tree in high wind in the same way we have the
>speed to take corners in American roads!
>


>This seems to me to be a far more reasonable approach than to say we want
>the road to be "perfectly safe 
>
Maybe, but it is not how the law works and it is not how the NPA work
either.
>In response to the article where I wrote:
>
>>The famous Rusland Beeches, which are situated between Coniston Water and
>>Lake Windermere in the Lake District, north west England are to be
>>completely destroyed unless we can reverse a recommendation made to  a
>>meeting to be held on October 1st 1996. 
>
>Bex responded and I add my responses:-
>
>In article <FGYuoAA0wjHyEw4H@foscot.demon.co.uk>,
>*** <bex@foscot.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>How do you know these trees are healthy ?
>
>Two reports by experts, both agree for the most partwith the'facts' but
>have have widely different interpretation of tentative data.
>
>>What might they damage if they did shed branches or fell ?
>
>At the worst one or two *might* have branches fall onto a country lane that
>has traffic about four cars per hour.

What if someone gets killed who doesn't have your views on tree care ?
>
>>These are questions you *have* to have the answers to. No-one will thank
>>you for *saving* a tree that subsequently kills someone. This scenario
>>happened in my village a few years ago. A local teenager was killed by a
>>'historic' tree that had been retained after a big campaign. After this
>>tragedy the tree was cut down (no objectors).
>
>I feel this is at the heart of the matter and needs further discussion.
>
Who knows how many people would rather a tree was felled than live with
the threat of it damaging them ?

>>If you want to be taken seriously I would suggest you commision a report
>>from a qualified arboricultural consultant 

>One survey done by the Arboricultural Advisory and Information Service
>(AAIS) the other by two people with considerable experience in dealing with
>the mature and ageing Beech trees.
>
>
This is a good start. There are some specific problems though.

1/ Summer branch-drop is not fully understood but is not as uncommon as
you seem to think.

2/ Beech is one of the smallish number of species known to be affected
by it.

3/ Long skinny branches (typical beech growth habit) are particularly
prone.

4/I havn't seen the report but the recommendation to fell all the trees
is probably because of wind-stresses which would be set up by the
removal of some trees from the line. We used to have about 75 140 year
old beeches on the main road. Three went over in 89. Only four now
remain because the new wind stresses sent them down like nine-pins over
the next eight years. New young beeches are now naturally regenerating
all along the roadside. (The replacements planted by local
schoolchildren all died due to lack of aftercare).

5/Beech are notoriously intolerant of heavy pruning operations and
almost invariably suffer from serious 'dieback' afterwards,
neccesitating further pruning and so on and so on.
>

I am sure these are beautiful old trees and I hope they don't get felled
unnecessarily. 
However, some people don't think there is ever any justification for
taking down a big old tree. I don't agree with this. Trees are living
things and they grow, age and eventually die. Lets give them as much
space as possible, but if they become dangerous lets accept that they
have to go. Those trees havn't always been there. 
There are 900 year old beeches in Windsor Park, massive ruins, no-one
will ever fell or prune them quite simply because they don't endanger
anyone. And why not ? Because they are tucked away from the path and
access is restricted for the public. The national parks were created to
encourage public access. Perhaps this is the price. You love those trees
because you know them. You know them because they are in a national
park.

-- 
bex
How many trees have you planted this year ?