Ecology would seem to be the motivating idea, that there aren't enough trees being planted.

Honestly, people can be so arrogant. She could even donate a tree to a nearby park or something, if it comes down to ecology.

No, Prarie, the GG was quite clear that it must be planted in her yard, not across town somewhere, so as to continue to provide habitat for the local wild creatures, which as I recall from reading that item, the lady did seem to appreciate having inhabit her property.

I do agree wholeheartedly that sometimes a tree must go - had one of those, a chestnut oak, in our front yard; family held me off for 30+ years, but when branches started falling, they gave in. What a difference it has made! New trees have been planted, but they're not chestnut oaks - we already have one massive white oak on the property and others in the area - but amelanchier and sweet bay magnolia (both native to this area and underused) and a 'Heritage' river birch. So, I also agree that sometimes it's desirable, even (or perhaps especially) from an ecological standpoint, to give the matter careful consideration (a tree is planted for the long haul) and "diversify one's holdings".

If her goal was to maintain the habitat for birds that dwell in conifers, then whats wrong with another tree? It's probably just a matter of word choices and her rapport with the person that you are not fully aware of.

A nice eastern red cedar would fit the bill just great.

Hrmph. Well, if it is truly a magnificent specimen, rare and admired by all, then she should leave it. If it is native, but rare in her area, then she should leave it. If it is one of myriad and unremarkable, then I don't see what the brouhaha is about. The poor woman should be able to cut down a tree in her own yard.

Political correctness is out of control.

Our community is struggling (fighting?) over an issue like this. There are a lot of older houses being torn down to make way for bigger ones. In the process, at times the lots get clear cut or large trees removed. The town has the ability to make, and does make, tree protection orders to forbid the removal of some of the trees on the lots. BUT there have been repeated attempts to pass a Tree Protection Bylaw that would mandate keeping all trees over certain diameter sizes. The basic arguement is that such a bylaw is needed to preserve the Town's tree canopy. It strikes me as misdirected overkill. Much of the canopy of larger trees is in the 50 year old range, dating from the late 1950s/early 1960s when the town went through a major growth period. All those trees are likely to reach maturity and die within a few years of each other. If the goal is to maintain a mature tree canopy, what is needed is a steady replacement rate, not a banning of removal entirely (except for obviously diseased or otherwise dangerous trees). The existing tree protection order process is sufficient to prevent clear cutting. To maintain future tree canopy, it would make sense to allow, even encourage, removal of older trees with the trees replaced with young trees, either on the same property or on public property - there are many places that could use some street trees. An outright ban on tree removal is going to lock the town into a future tree canopy problem and lock homeowners into 50 year old landscaping that is frequently now overgrown. Tree removal is one of those issues where emotion seems to trump rational choices.

Tree mitigation is an issue on all of the job-sites my company works at. Often we need to cut down quite frankly ugly trees for haul roads and pipelines, and it is quite the process to go through. We even site our pipelines to avoid as many trees as possible, which are usually just scrubby overcrowded pines, as Cape Cod really doesn't have any fabulous forests.

At another wetland restoration projects in New Hampshire, we even had dead tree mitigation to contend with! Dead trees were placed in our re-made wetlands to restore the ones that were excavated, during PCB soil removal.

For one mid-western client, we had to replant about 1,000 mitigation trees as negotiated with gov't regultors, but our client wasn't enthusiatic about the trees. We were directed to plant these without tree guards in the middle of over-croweded deer country. Needless to say all parties were satisfied, the gov't got there trees planted, the client got them scaled back, and the deer were happy.

I seem to remember a case in California where a judge ordered a homeowner to cut mature trees where his neighbor claimed a statute right to sunlight on his newly installed solar panels.

In one place you can't cut, at another you have to cut. Is a person to have any freedom in the management of his property?

I think it would be better if government would drop a lot of the mandates on trees and adopt an incentive package for actions that benefit society in general. Allow property owners to cut at will, but encourage them not to do that with tax incentives. One could raise the tax rate by 2 to 5%, then allow one to claim a tax credit against real estate taxes for maybe up to 3 trees having a caliper of 10 inches. $20 per tree sounds about right to me.

As is so often the cases it's a matter of regulations being passed that do not allow for the actual specifics encountered when the situation being addressed occurs. The stem diameter of a tree has little to do with its condition at the time of development, how likely it might be to survive development of the site in a safe and viable condition, and how useful retention of that particular tree might be to the community. A 10" diameter sourwood or stewartia might be the biggest one in the state, a 14" diameter Siberian elm or paulownia one of many and a weed species in that region as well.

Quantity over quality, I suppose motivated by a realization that the volume of the tree canopy in a community may be decreasing. Each one cut down pokes a hole in the roof.

While cleaning up the remains of some large trees we took down last fall, I had to endure the dirty looks and in a couple of cases, comments, from passersby about taking down "healthy" trees. I guess if the leaves are green, it means the tree is healthy. Never mind that they were Norway Maples, on the noxious weed list and rampant seeders. They should have thanked me for removing them, a significant expense.

Some people just can't bear to have an old or large tree taken down, no matter what the reason or circumstances.

Did anyone notice the mis-labeled plants inside the back cover of this issue?

I suppose I might have overreacted to the tone that came through to me. I do sympathize with cities and neighborhoods trying their best to create and retain some form of greenscape.

What's interesting is how poorly we are directing new construction--obviuslyy it would be ideal for any new areas continue to contribute to the "tree canopy", and older areas can be allowed to renew themselves within some guidelines. So I guess in some areas, it would be like having a restrictive covenant to preserve the existing amount of "old" plantings.

In our city, we do also have a lot of tear-downs in several of the most desirable old neighborhoods, and the typical new built home appears to be the biggest thing that can be squeezed onto the lot. At first, of course, they get to "borrow" from the surrounding landscapes. And their own landscapes may be attractive in some way, but always with restrained small shrubs and small ornamental trees (no room for anything bigger).

So one problem of some of the big "old" trees is that the lots were still too small for some them when their 30+ year size is taken into consideration.

It would be really cool to have ongoing "advice" about how to begin to modify your landscape to replace a bothersome tree, or to intentionally take out a "bad" tree and replace with one that will be great in 10 years, or generally to landscape both for you today and for future owners you'll never see, and maybe that was part of the Garden Guru's approach. Very few people look at their property that way, and maybe I sounded that way, but was responding more to what sounded like very restricted options posed to the advice-seeker.

They're packing them in here, too. Some new developments look like shipyards, a bunch of big tall boxy buildings clustered close together. Some seem to have been planned with no requirement for landscaping present, let alone tree retention.

Interesting topic.

I live in the country (in Tennessee - so this is a Southern story), so I don't have neighbors to fight with on this issue, but I do know a little about trees and the health of forrests. On my own property, I am preparing for some selctive logging and thinning of the forrest. This is necessary because the old growth in some spots has gotten to the point of causing a DECLINE in bio-diversity. When you get trees that are 100+ feet in height, they can shade out just about anything else underneath. So shade-tolerant species are the only ones that can grow under the canopy, and they eventually create somewhat of a monoculture in the forrest. When the large canopy trees do die - as they all will - what's left are the shade-tolerant trees, and they prevent the next generation of hardwoods from growing. So eventually you loose the majestic Oaks, Hickories, etc. and are left with little more than Beech, Ironwood and Maple. These trees are not as good for the ecology, and don't provide much food for wildlife. Oaks and Hickories are the back-bone of the forrest, providing the lion's share of the food crops. An Oak tree also processes twice as much CO2 as a comparably sized Maple. But their seedlings are shade-intolerant. The Oaks will not grow back if the forrest is shady.

So, if we never thin the forrest, and insist on preserving all the mature trees, the richness of our ecology declines. The forrest supports fewer species, and weedy species gradually become dominant. We have eliminated much of the natural "turnover" that occurred in the forrest, especially wildfires. We put them out with a vengence! Yet these acts of nature are crucial to clearning areas where Oaks and Hickories can sprout and thrive in the sun.

The Forrestry service did a survey of my land for me and recommended selective thinning to allow a greater diversity of species to grow here. I'm negotiating with loggers who use low-impact logging techniques, such as the use of mules to haul out the logs, so as to minimize the impact on the land. No one loves trees more than I do, but we all need to realize we have a responsibility to manage the forrest, just as we would any garden. It IS a garden - just a garden of giant plants! Diversity and renewal are an essential part of any healthy ecology. I think those principles extend to urban neighborhoods and back yards too. :-)

K4

That's some interesting information, K4. I envy you your forest. I don't know if I'd have the nerve to cut down big trees, but I do see your point. Wildfires kept everything balanced. Now we sometimes have to use other methods.

If the three species complex is the natural climax for your site, it might be more valuable to leave it alone - especially with all the other landowners constantly generating disturbances. Most other properties may be in some state of progressing to the climax vegetation, rather than sustaining it. Unnatural rarity of the climax forest species mix would make yours more valuable than the much more common stages leading up to it. Calling one of these stages more diverse or better in some other way is a value judgement, based on what people want to get out of or see on the land. It is more accurate to see the old growth as having different species, rather than fewer or less desirable ones. Out here it has been noticed only comparatively recently (starting 1970s, I think) that what is left of the old growth has numerous kinds of insects and other animals living up in the canopy, in the manner of a tropical rainforest. Before then it was thought most of the action was on the ground.

We really need to start viewing this whole topic of "trees" with some semblance of intelligence. Society has largely taken on the misguided belief of automatic sanctity whenever the word tree is mentioned. Cutting down ANY tree has become a sacrilege. This is nonsense.

Kaitain4 from Tennessee included a number of learned observations on this topic  a rarity for which I offer my thanks. Any horticultural advice  including tree advice  is regionally & site specific. In certain circumstances, trees (especially certain species) are a villain and should be aggressively eliminated.

As but one example: Misplaced beneficence has allowed the growth of trees to begin destroying the diverse understory of spring ephemerals in many woodland areas. As another example, best ecological practices dictate that all trees be removed from prairies  but even that dictates specific exceptions; such as savannas.

Gardening advice is like picante sauce --- Neither one should come from New York City!

IronBelly

Out here we have overgrowth of an artificial climax of Douglas fir and spruce in the intermountain region due to the Smoky Bear policy. This has also created a huge fire danger problem, as crown fires are now common where ground fires were the norm in the past - the natural condition.

The merit and value of a "closed" forest always comes down to what is the historic natural condition of the site, what the undisturbed ecosystem would be doing. This has nothing to do with there being lots of pretty flowers or cute deer on the property. Except and unless such features are, in fact absent or diminishing due to human interference messing with the site to promote the occurrence of such elements should not be an across-the-board recommendation or presented as a restoration to a natural condition but rather a management choice made based on a desire to favor certain plants or animals.