Search results for query: *

I feel I must reinterate, for it seems to have been overlooked as this thread has progressed...my comments re what good is and is not derived by trees from our management actions stands apart from the requirements of co-existence with human neighbors. In that situation, we must frequently...

:D

Rant? Moi? :) It does look great, nice example of very successful intervention. Perhaps my problem is that I don't live in an urban environment...trees are valuable as individuals in that scenario. Not so much in my world, so I tend to look at them from the perspective of the forest...

Fair enough, I'll happily agree that in extreme cases of damage the tree cannot cope...but in those cases could human intervention help? And I'm not saying "all damage is sealed over"...I'm saying the tree doesn't need our attentions except to meet our desires for that tree.

Please don't misunderstand me, young friend. You are absolutely correct in your assertion that people and trees must co-exist where they share space. I agree with everything you have said here. My point is that we fool ourselves if we think trees benefit from our intervention...it's only...

I mean exactly what you state, except I only referred to the tree, not it's surroundings: "You mean that less humans, health benefits to a tree would not be derived by pruning, including to the surrounding environment?" A tree does not need, nor desire, parts of it removed. If an accident...

This is all noise...trees do not need one single thing cut off of them except to modify their structure to accomodate life in close proximity to us.

Ditto Carl and Justin...I'm not in the biz, and I'm for sure not criticizing, but I have never seen a tree that needed pruning except to help it interact with people.