I was reading an article about our "City Forester" restoring the "Urban Forest" by having residents buy trees and plant them in the boulevards (see article). I see these terms all the time as I read the literature and other information and I have to laugh. Terms that people invent that are meant to, I think, impress others. Terms like the "City Forester" and "Urban Forest". What the heck do these mean anyway? I often wonder where do these terms come from? The only conclusion I have come to is these must be terms thought up by a professor some place wanting a term that sounded very intelligent for something very... well... unintelligent or very simple. In short a term that would impress people instead of embarrass the user. Lets face it, it sounds much more impressive to state you are in favor of saving the "Urban Forest" than saving city trees or a "City Forester" instead of "Tree Maintenance". It just doesn't have the same ring to it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not minimizing or making fun of the job these people are doing, just the fact we have to dream up these outlandish titles and names that are more confusing.
Few people , outside of the "in crowd", have any clue what the heck the "Urban Forest" is. When they are looking for some simple information and continually run into these types of terms , to many, it can become as tedious as reading a medical journal and consequently they terminate their quest for continued knowledge. When they cannot understand the terminology, it is difficult to keep interested in the subject matter.
Why do professionals search for such exotic ways to describe the simplest jobs and techniques that we do day-to-day, especially in an area that interfaces so closely with the public; like tree removal? Perhaps it is self gratifying or what I call "egocentric", if it sounds complex then it is more important, my job is more important and hence I am more important, if it sounds super intellectual... well you get my drift. I'm just a plain old fashioned tree person and the "Urban Forest" as they like to call it is simply the trees in the city... trees....city trees.... that's all, why not call it that then? Guess it just sounds more important.... confusing as it is.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
EVERYONE TO BUY BOULAVARD TREES?
EVERYONE TO BUY BOULAVARD TREES?
Seems Rochester has picked a very bad time to try to implement a "spend money on extra items" ordinance. Don't get me wrong, I have stated this many times before, I am very supportive of the "Urban Forest".... whatever that is! I just think, like any land management project, perhaps a little for-thought should go into some of the ideas before they are implemented. For example, we are now in the process of removing our Ash trees so they don't get the emerald ash bore (see my previous post). Well, I guess an ash tree can't get diseased if it doesn't exist anymore! Do you remove your lungs so you don't get lung cancer?
The same problem is true with planting trees in the boulevards, think about it first. These ideas are all fine "theoretical" ideas, but they are not new ideas. These are ideas that have been discussed at universities and large communities before. But the problem is universities are a "theoretical world" and these ideas fall apart when they are implemented in a real world. Once you add the human element to it, the ideal plan crumbles. Sure it sounds like a fine plan that everyone could buy a tree or two and put it in front of their house. The whole city would look nice, we might even get the "Tree Capital" award again. But the human element is; most people do not want to be directed to do so, cannot afford to do it, or just don't care about trees like we do.
In today's economy many people are getting laid off of work, losing their jobs entirely and taking wage cuts. The cost of living is also going up at the same time adding more pressure on most household budgets. Now, remodeling and new building are supposed to add on the cost of boulevard trees. Not only is it a tree you have to buy, but a tree you have not right to prune or take care of. The city is the only authorize care-provider of this new acquisition you have purchased. Sounds a lot like the car my kid is driving. I pay for it and he drives it, what a deal huh? Sounds like a deal I want to jump in line for... NOT!
Seems Rochester has picked a very bad time to try to implement a "spend money on extra items" ordinance. Don't get me wrong, I have stated this many times before, I am very supportive of the "Urban Forest".... whatever that is! I just think, like any land management project, perhaps a little for-thought should go into some of the ideas before they are implemented. For example, we are now in the process of removing our Ash trees so they don't get the emerald ash bore (see my previous post). Well, I guess an ash tree can't get diseased if it doesn't exist anymore! Do you remove your lungs so you don't get lung cancer?
The same problem is true with planting trees in the boulevards, think about it first. These ideas are all fine "theoretical" ideas, but they are not new ideas. These are ideas that have been discussed at universities and large communities before. But the problem is universities are a "theoretical world" and these ideas fall apart when they are implemented in a real world. Once you add the human element to it, the ideal plan crumbles. Sure it sounds like a fine plan that everyone could buy a tree or two and put it in front of their house. The whole city would look nice, we might even get the "Tree Capital" award again. But the human element is; most people do not want to be directed to do so, cannot afford to do it, or just don't care about trees like we do.
In today's economy many people are getting laid off of work, losing their jobs entirely and taking wage cuts. The cost of living is also going up at the same time adding more pressure on most household budgets. Now, remodeling and new building are supposed to add on the cost of boulevard trees. Not only is it a tree you have to buy, but a tree you have not right to prune or take care of. The city is the only authorize care-provider of this new acquisition you have purchased. Sounds a lot like the car my kid is driving. I pay for it and he drives it, what a deal huh? Sounds like a deal I want to jump in line for... NOT!
CAN WE REALLY STOP THE EMERALD ASH BORER??
CAN WE REALLY STOP THE EMERALD ASH BORER??
If there is one thing I thought we learned from our last go around, with the Dutch Elm disease, was that you really can't get rid of or stop or slow down the spread such diseases. These types of diseases are driven in nature in such a way that there is no practical way we can possibly intervene and prevent them.
These diseases are caused by insects that invade the layer between the bark and the wood of the tree. Signs of the infected trees do not show up for many months or years. In this time the insects have spawned many new families and propagated their relatives to the surrounding trees. Even if you could identify a tree as being infected in the early stages your choices are to treat it with chemicals or cut it down. Either way the insects are not eradicated immediately nor are they eradicated from the entire area, just that tree.
The argument can be made that the fight against the on slaught of the disease is made "one tree at a time". However, when you consider these pesky little devils can fly up to three miles in all directions, this leaves a major area for the ones that escape to relocate.
When the Dutch Elm disease started to invade our community many of our old historic elms fell victim to the little critters. We hacked, and cut, and burned, and chopped, and dug out stumps, and made lots of rules. Guess what? We still have Dutch Elm disease today as bad as we did back then.... and we still have elm trees! Think of all the money that has gone to prevent the inevitable. The ironic part is we were recommended to replant ASH TREES!(see Everyone To Buy Bouevard Trees)
Now we are making plans to cut the Ash trees down before they become diseased. The city is even looking for funding to support this effort. Maybe I am just a little cynical but I say, just enjoy the Ash trees until they need to be cut down!
If there is one thing I thought we learned from our last go around, with the Dutch Elm disease, was that you really can't get rid of or stop or slow down the spread such diseases. These types of diseases are driven in nature in such a way that there is no practical way we can possibly intervene and prevent them.
These diseases are caused by insects that invade the layer between the bark and the wood of the tree. Signs of the infected trees do not show up for many months or years. In this time the insects have spawned many new families and propagated their relatives to the surrounding trees. Even if you could identify a tree as being infected in the early stages your choices are to treat it with chemicals or cut it down. Either way the insects are not eradicated immediately nor are they eradicated from the entire area, just that tree.
The argument can be made that the fight against the on slaught of the disease is made "one tree at a time". However, when you consider these pesky little devils can fly up to three miles in all directions, this leaves a major area for the ones that escape to relocate.
When the Dutch Elm disease started to invade our community many of our old historic elms fell victim to the little critters. We hacked, and cut, and burned, and chopped, and dug out stumps, and made lots of rules. Guess what? We still have Dutch Elm disease today as bad as we did back then.... and we still have elm trees! Think of all the money that has gone to prevent the inevitable. The ironic part is we were recommended to replant ASH TREES!(see Everyone To Buy Bouevard Trees)
Now we are making plans to cut the Ash trees down before they become diseased. The city is even looking for funding to support this effort. Maybe I am just a little cynical but I say, just enjoy the Ash trees until they need to be cut down!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)