Iconoclastic

Tree Action states that it surveyed Arborists and guesstimated “over 500 large trees a year were being removed and countless young ones.” I would love to see where they obtained their information, and how they ascertained this number. I have a feeling their research methods may have been a little faulty. There are a large number of trees removed in Chico every year, but if you take out dead/diseased/dying trees, damaged trees, and structurally unsound tree, I would venture to guess the number would be closer to the 100-150 range for large tree removals. This seems like a high number of large removals, but in a city that boast one of the largest municipally owned parks in the nation, and has dubbed itself “The City of Trees”, I don’t think we have much to worry about – I mean, we’re not talking clear cutting here folks!

Tree Action says, “The removal of trees affects the quality of life of all residents and is not just a private property matter.” Dose that mean when a tree someone is trying to cut through all the red tape to remove, falls on their house, the community is going to step up and help repair their roof? Are neighbor’s going to pitch in and help clean up the leaves, or chip in for the maintenance costs of the tree. People find it easy to say trees belong to the community, until we start talking dollars; trees are expensive to maintain and care for, and this investment is made by the homeowner, which is why the homeowner should have rights over decisions made in regards to trees they maintain.

Tree Action proposes better control of PG&E trimming. With this I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately, I don’t think PG&E is going to go for it, and since the power lines are legally considered their right of way, were are talking about changing legislation here. Idealistically it would be wonderful if PG&E could properly prune trees, I have seen many a beautiful tree ruined because it was planted to close to a power line and had the audacity to grow tall. But this would raise the costs of maintenance for a company that we are all aware is struggling, and this cost would most likely be passed onto us, the consumer.

Tree Action proposes that the City trees be better maintained and treated. This is another wonderful idea, except the reason it has not been done thus far is not because City of Chico hates its trees, it hasn’t been done because there is not enough money, time, or personnel to get it all taken care of. Tree Action feels the best way to solve this problem is by adding more responsibility, paperwork, and duty to an already overworked and overtaxed budget. Color me crazy, but it just doesn’t add up.

A couple of questions Tree Actions proposed amendments brings up for me:

What, exactly, is a “city-certified expert arborist”?

AND

Why would we want to punish new property owners for the mistakes of previous owners by not allowing them submit an application? I would think this would lead to more “contravention” of the terms of the tree ordinance, as opposed to observing the laws.

AND

Where is the money to maintian all of these ideas going to come from? I'm a numbers person, and I want to know who we are going to take money from to cover the costs.

Tree Actions says, “Expert consultants who help cities to build effective tree ordinances think ours is very much in its infancy…” I agree! But I think the direction Tree Action is trying to prod this little infant in, is the wrong one.

Trees are like people, they have finite life spans. No matter how much water they get, or don’t get, how perfect their soil is, or how important they are to the people of the community, trees die. And when they are big trees and they die, they become very dangerous!

I honestly believe the people of Tree Action love trees, and want to do what’s best for them. But I think that is true for 99% of the people who live in Chico. Since Tree Action has a group of committed and helpful people who want to work towards bettering Chico’s trees, I have a few suggestions that may help them in a more productive direction.

I feel first and foremost we need more education. There are many people out there who don’t understand the importance of hiring an arborist, or even what an arborist is. And I don’t mean any Joe Shmoe running around with a pick-up truck and a chainsaw saying he’s an arborist. An arborist is a specialist in the care of individual trees. Arborists are knowledgeable about the needs of trees are trained and equipped to provide proper care. Tree care is definitely an industry where you get what you pay for!

There are many companies running around who do not have the proper training or equipment to work on trees. And there are companies out there who suggest removals of beautiful healthy trees because their lumbar is worth money. There are companies which practice in horrible pruning techniques like topping, lions tailing, and leaving stubs. And there are companies out there who do not enforce safe working habits, putting their employees and there customers at risk. These people give tree companies a bad name, and make tree care very difficult. This problem is completely missed in Tree Action’s proposal. They mention “city-certified expert arborists” multiple times, but I am not sure what this means. I would most definitely stand behind an amendment that addressed better business practices, and monitoring of insurance coverage, safety standards, and proper pruning enforcement, but I feel these topics were only slightly grazed over in their current amendment proposal. These are the issues I feel are really hurting the trees of Chico.

It is rare that people want to remove their trees because they are “too messy” or “too much trouble”. But this seems to be a big worry for Tree Action. It is my experience that it is the elderly members of our community who feel the need to remove their trees for these reasons, and it is usually because they cannot afford to maintain the trees, or they are unable to clean up after them. Since there are so many people willing to volunteer, why don’t you put together a team of people to help with the maintenance of trees people are finding it hard to keep up with. They could come and rake and haul away leaves; clean out gutters, and clear off sidewalks. Or they could offer help planting suitable trees properly in people yards to help increase the urban forest canopy and replace the trees that are inevitably going to need to be removed.

If “thoughtless tree removal is a failure by the owner to understand the contribution trees make to our environment,” then why not help the owner to understand? As opposed to placing laws and restrictions on them to force them to understand.

Tree Action has got a wonderful idea! They want to protect trees. I don’t think there are many people who disagree with that message. I just think they are going about it in the wrong way….

What do you think?