Hey ekka, that last post kinda beat me to it. When i saw the 1st pics i were SHOCKED. To butcher trees like that in situations where they are made a public example is ridiculous. The public see this being done by the very council that governs them so of course they think they should do the same. Its an ongoing battle to change the ideas in many laymans head on how to treat trees when it has been done this way for generations prior. Now that science has taught us how to treat trees with respect to their natural systems, we arborists are doing our best to turn things around and are set back 20 years by things like this.
I know of some "habitat" trees down here. A few in a golf course that has some very rare fauna for the suburbs. And also of some on council land in a heritage protected street ( National Trust & local council). This pocket is tightly protected, NO tree can be TOUCHED at all without a full Arborist Report done and approved prior. And they will rarely allow more than deadwooding. (This is where we did a Sequoia last week) Anyway the "habitat" trees are usually cut back way harder than the one youve showed, leaving large diameter wood and short stubs only. This lessons the chance of falling parts as it breaks down and its structure disintergrates.
And the main thing is, it is really only suitable to 'habitat' a tree where significant fauna exist, and a low target rating is likely. This looks like a busy suburban intersection. Not really appropriate place to keep a tree like this.
I believe this tree should now be removed.
If there really is significant fauna in the area, and it is desired to retain it, then this council should send a crew back to further reduce it so safer, rope the area off to the public and put up signage explaining why this has been done and why you should not do it to your own tree. |