[CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5

Mon Jun 18 13:50:50 EDT 2012

I'm delighted that my earlier questions have spawned such a deluge of
discussion, even if the topic has morphed. My own impression is that,
unless a given city is willing to grow its own nursery stock, we are all
basically left with what nurseries are willing to grow for us.
Private-sector nurseries, being driven by profit, will grow and sell what's
best for their bottom line and as long as the plant survives its warranty
period, all is well. This "model" is not in our best interests. In a
similar sense, removals are often what's best for the short-term bottom
line of a tree care company. This is also not in the best interests of
those of us trying to create and/or maintain a flourishing urban forest. Of
course, there's plenty of similar examples I could cite from other
industries, including food and medicine. Regardless of whether we are urban
foresters, arborists, or grocery shoppers, my point is that it is to
virtually everyone's detriment to let our societal values and collective
interests be dictated by the business world. That said, businesses are not
inflexible and simply refusing to buy anything other than locally-sourced
native species would conceivably be a step in the right direction. Not
allowing the sales rep of a tree care company to decide the retainability
of your tree probably wouldn't hurt either.

Oliver K. Reichl

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Boysen, Barb (MNR) <barb.boysen at ontario.ca
> wrote:

> And we're back to the original question and how to answer it. What stock
> to put where.
>
> It's a matter of context and not considering the unique complexity of
> local areas.  As Ian explains, where one species is a big problem for
> some, it can be a solution for him, as he considers his local context.
>
> I'm asking about a checklist approach that may help all of us better
> address the complexity of our own context.  Not addressing or
> understanding that complexity is an historical problem.
>
> Many species were introduced here due to simple availability from the
> more mature European and then the larger American markets.  Grown
> strategically (maybe?) for a particular market, but then marketed well
> beyond that market to areas that couldn't judge their needs, or
> influence the supply due to
> - a urban society that was relatively young in terms of local
> horticulture/ forestry/landscaping expertise,
> - no budget or demand for developing their own expertise with locally
> adapted species for challenging urban situations
> - poor economies of scale that would allow growers to produce locally
> appropriate material at prices people are willing to pay.
>
> But - I've seen a lot of change in the last 20 years in awareness and
> attitudes and a little bit in action.  Climate change awareness is
> actually getting more and more people interested in asking the question
> - "Will it grow well here. And most importantly what exactly is it -
> where did it come from in the first place?"  Questions we should have
> been asking all along.
>
> And by the way - kudos to the originators of CANUFNET. It's one of my
> favourite forums.  I've learned a lot reading all of your submissions.
>
> Barb Boysen, Coordinator
> Forest Gene Conservation Association
>
> Suite 233, 266 Charlotte St
> Peterborough, Ontario
> K9J 2V4
>
> T: (705) 755-3284
> F: (705) 755-3292
>
> barb.boysen at ontario.ca
>
> www.fgca.net
> www.ontariosnaturalselections.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Ian Wilson
> Sent: June 18, 2012 11:14 AM
> To: 'Canadian Urban Forest Network'
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
> Issue 5
>
> I agree with both of you - native species SHOULD be the ultimate goal.
> But it's not about being "lazy", the fact is that we are dealing with
> extremely harsh urban conditions, hardscape, lack of water, highly
> modified soils, lack of space, pollution, vandalism - you name it, it's
> a tree's worst nightmare.  Many of us are trying to improve things by
> using new technologies, and fighting to preserve the little bit of space
> that we can get, to fit in the trees among all of the other competing
> interests.  The theory is good but it's very difficult to achieve in
> practice.
>
> The alternative is "zeroscape" with no trees at all and yes the exotics
> do provide many environmental benefits as well as benefits to wildlife.
> In our city we quantified them with the UFORE model and it's millions of
> dollars in benefits, in addition to all of the benefits that can't be
> quantified.  In southern Ontario I could see there may be some concerns
> about gene flow from certain exotic species into native communities
> because your native forests are more diverse.  In my area it is
> semi-arid and we have three native trees:  ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir
> and cottonwood.  London plane is not going to cause any gene flow into
> our local native forests, but they will actually produce many benefits
> if planted in the right place.
>
> The other big unknown is climate change - will today's native species be
> mal-adapted in the future, due to changing climates?  Some have
> suggested that if we want to know what is going to be native in the
> future, we will have to look to more southerly forests.
>
> Ian Wilson
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of stephen at ufora.ca
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 6:51 AM
> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
> Issue 5
>
> Amen Barb.  There's a lot of pressure to just plant as many trees as
> possible, any species.  It's throwing away the baby with the bathwater
> and
> it isn't necessary. We can plant natives and have them thrive if we do
> our
> jobs properly and don't cut corners or take the easy way out. If the
> designer is lazy and the installer is the low bidder, then the rest of
> us
> have to work harder. The city can be like an alien spaceship on the
> landscape if we let it, or a great place to preserve and enhance what's
> left
> of the nature we still have. We have the money, expertise and lots of
> people
> here to do it.
>
> Stephen Smith
> Urban Forest Associates Inc.
> Urban Forestry and Ecological Restoration
> www.ufora.ca
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boysen, Barb (MNR)
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 7:51 AM
> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
> Issue 5
>
> Despite the amen, I'd like to continue the discussion about the right
> tree in the right place.
>
> I've been arguing for people to understand that the urban forest is not
> an island.  Depending on the topography and the state of the
> natural/rural landscape around it, it has great potential:
> - to contribute to natural gene flow, and 'lord knows' many of our
> southern Ontario local areas could use the help, and that's not even
> considering natural migration pathways and climate change effects
> - to be a barrier to that gene flow, and again with the sprawl effect
> this is increasing,
> - and worse, to be source of invasive or maladapted genes that can
> pollute/dilute the native communities and gene pools. This is a huge
> issue and getting larger in southern Ontario.
>
> And I seriously appreciate the need for green and its benefits in the
> many totally artificial sites, but I hope we can do a lot better to
> improve
> - the sites for urban trees,
> - the selection of material that will thrive and either be neutral or
> beneficial to the local and neighbouring landscapes
> - the message to clients, the politicians and the public about what's at
> stake.
>
> If our profession doesn't make the arguments, how can we expect them to
> appreciate it?  We had some great discussions along these lines at the
> OUFC's agm Spreading Roots last November, as many in the audience heard
> the reality re the stock that is produced by many of the larger growers,
> poor sites for trees and poor, poor planting and tending practices.
>
> In the previous discussion Oliver asked some questions about species
> selection and Phillip replied about making your own decision as long as
> you are prepared/able to defend it.
>
> I'm wondering if there are a set of guiding principles, or even a
> checklist that people could use when making species/stock type
> selections, and whether they include the broader long term and landscape
> implications?
>
> Or are we too pressured to just deliver anything green?
>
> Barb Boysen, Coordinator
> Forest Gene Conservation Association
>
> Suite 233, 266 Charlotte St
> Peterborough, Ontario
> K9J 2V4
>
> T: (705) 755-3284
> F: (705) 755-3292
>
> barb.boysen at ontario.ca
>
> www.fgca.net
> www.ontariosnaturalselections.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of James Urban
> Sent: June 16, 2012 11:56 AM
> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
> Issue 5
>
> Amen
>
> Jim Urban
> Urban Trees + Soils
> 410 263 4838
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Ian Wilson wrote:
>
> > It's been said before - there are no trees that are native to cities.
> An urban forest is, by definition, an artificial landscape.  I agree
> that we should try to incorporate local native species where possible
> and good design helps - but in most urban situations the native trees
> don't do well.  The "right tree in the right place" should be our credo,
> which should include exotics that don't cause other problems
> >
> > Ian Wilson
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Kowalyk, Bohdan
> (MNR)
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:33 AM
> > To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
> > Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
> Issue 5
> >
> > There are two separate issues involved that are getting confused.  One
> > (my interest) is about what (if any) urban areas would be appropriate
> > for proliferating non-native tree species and whether more emphasis
> > should be placed during design of urbanizing areas on providing
> > conditions suitable for representative native species.  The other
> issue
> > of human health effects from pollen is altogether different and
> > apparently pushed primarily by drug companies.
> >
> > Bohdan
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> > [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Philip van
> Wassenaer
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:31 AM
> > To: 'Canadian Urban Forest Network'
> > Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
> > Issue 5
> >
> > I second that motion. Let's not protect ourselves so much that we all
> > get
> > hermetically sealed off from the nature that produced us!
> >
> >
> > Philip van Wassenaer, B.SC., MFC
> > Principal Consultant
> > Urban Forest Innovations Inc.
> > Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
> > www.urbanforestinnovations.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> > [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net]
> > On Behalf Of James Urban
> > Sent: June-14-12 8:51 AM
> > To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
> > Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
> > Issue 5
> >
> > I wish that we would focus our attention on the larger picture.  The
> > most
> > destructive and invasive species, by far on the planet are humans.  Or
> > you
> > could take the opposite approach and say humans are a part of the
> > natural
> > evolution of the planet (we are nature) and the changes we bring to
> this
> > evolutionary process is just nature at work.  In either case I think
> we
> > worry about small things we think we can control while missing the
> > larger
> > more important items that maybe we cannot control but which need to be
> a
> > part of the discussion.
> >
> > We live in a cloud of pollen and I doubt that the small change in
> pollen
> > caused by the few plants that we can control make a significant
> > difference
> > in overall levels.  But I do believe that if we fail to get a healthy
> > (pollen producing) urban canopy, we will continue to drive people into
> > their
> > AC controlled homes.  Getting people out of contact with all the nasty
> > things that are in the outdoor environment has been shown to increase
> > the
> > allergies we think we are trying to protect people from in the first
> > place.
> > Breath the air, sneeze in pollen season, take Claritin if you must,
> but
> > continue to fight for large canopy trees that will cool the city and
> > make
> > the city a better place to live.
> >
> > Jim Urban
> > Urban Trees + Soils
> > 410 263 4838
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 13, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Kowalyk, Bohdan (MNR) wrote:
> >
> >> Wouldn't a male clone still release pollen able to travel distances
> >> for reproduction with the uncontrolled population?
> >>
> >> Bohdan
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> >> [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of James Urban
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:07 AM
> >> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
> >> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Tree of Heaven RE: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89,
> >> Issue 5
> >>
> >> Tree of heaven can be invasive, but if you specify a male cultivar
> >> those plants are not.  unfortunately the male cultivar is still in
> >> development so you will have to wait a few more years.  Jut file this
>
> >> away until you see the male cultivar released.
> >>
> >> However.  Tree of heaven is not at all like sumac.  It is a huge tree
>
> >> while sumac is a small tree.
> >>
> >> Jim Urban
> >> Urban Trees + Soils
> >> 410 263 4838
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 10, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Iola Price wrote:
> >>
> >>> It will take me a bit of time (that I don't have at this point) to
> >>> dig through my files to verify, but isn't Tree of Heaven considered
> >> invasive or
> >>> potentially so in Ontario?  Iola Price
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> >> [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net]
> >>> On Behalf Of canufnet-request at list.web.net
> >>> Sent: June 10, 2012 12:00 PM
> >>> To: canufnet at list.web.net
> >>> Subject: CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5
> >>>
> >>> Send CANUFNET mailing list submissions to
> >>> canufnet at list.web.net
> >>>
> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >>> http://list.web.net/lists/listinfo/canufnet
> >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >>> canufnet-request at list.web.net
> >>>
> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >>> canufnet-owner at list.web.net
> >>>
> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >> than
> >>> "Re: Contents of CANUFNET digest..."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Today's Topics:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Re: CTLA appraisals in Ontario (Oliver Reichl)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -
> >>>
> >>> Message: 1
> >>> Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 11:40:07 -0400
> >>> From: Oliver Reichl <careofthetrees at gmail.com>
> >>> To: Canadian Urban Forest Network <canufnet at list.web.net>
> >>> Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] CTLA appraisals in Ontario
> >>> Message-ID:
> >>>
> >> <CA+3+qfHDZ4KeDoddcVasNoMt1ZTMNCFsK16ibR+V+CHt2ewROw at mail.gmail.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Alex/Ian/John for your replies. Some comments:
> >>>
> >>> 1) ISAO is apparently out of supplements and all they gave me was a
> >>> photocopy of the list of species ratings. No worksheet. Anyone have
> a
> >> pdf of
> >>> the whole supplement and wanna share?
> >>> 2) Things started with native species on this site, and I'm very
> >> partial to
> >>> keeping it that way. Of course, I'd also prefer stock from locally
> >> sourced
> >>> seed. I chose *Ulmus americana* 'Princeton' because its apparently
> >>> DED resistent, still the same species, and available in the client's
>
> >>> area,
> >> even
> >>> if it probably isn't genetically "local".
> >>> 3) For sumac, in the absence of a worksheet, I'm leaning towards the
> >> species
> >>> rating for Tree-of-Heaven (because of similar leaf shape, similarly
> >>> soft-wooded, and its low rating).
> >>> 4) Both "scrubby" and "tree form" Manitoba maples occur on the site.
>
> >>> I
> >> like
> >>> Alex's *Acer* alternates, and am also considering *A. saccharinum*.
> >>> Basswood has also been suggested to me, I presume because its
> >> similarly
> >>> soft-wooded and also inclined to be multi-stemmed).
> >>> 5) Yes, big quotes take time to put together, but I definitely share
> >> Ian's
> >>> opinion on this. Paying for one quote is one thing, but 3x or more
> >>> can
> >> get
> >>> pricey pretty quick. I think my future response will be to
> >> spontaneously
> >>> levy a "quote administration fee" equal to the amount someone wants
> >> for
> >>> submitting a quote. They probably won't like that one bit, but odds
> >> are that
> >>> anyone who's that focused on profiteering isn't gonna be your lowest
> >> quote
> >>> anyway.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Oliver K. Reichl, B.E.S.(Hons)
> >>> Consulting Arborist-Ecologist
> >>> ISA Certified Arborist #ON-1178A
> >>> 18 Larue Mills Rd.
> >>> 1000 Islands, ON  K0E 1R0
> >>> Tel: 613-923-8833
> >>> Email: careofthetrees at gmail.com
> >>> Web: www.oliverkilian.com/treecare
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Hennessy, John
> >>> <John.Hennessy at brampton.ca>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ian and Oliver,****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> We have been monitoring our Zelkovia over the past two years. Not a
>
> >>>> long history, however we have had enough winter kill in exposed
> >>>> areas
> >>
> >>>> to adjust our expectations . Our Zelkovia planted in the spring did
>
> >>>> moderately better than those planted in the fall. However, any
> >>>> Zelkovia planted with open north westerly exposure, did
> >>>> poorly.(60%mortality, 30% pedestal suckering mess?s!). ****
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the second positive comment with regards to ?sensation?. We
>
> >>>> will be adding ?sensation to our list 2013, thank you. Our
> ?pioneer?
> >>>> and ?homestead? are hardy where the Zelkovia fell short. We use all
>
> >>>> three, in desirable and undesirable sites, to continue to
> diversify.
> >>
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> John Hennessy****
> >>>>
> >>>> City of Brampton****
> >>>>
> >>>> Forestry Inspector****
> >>>>
> >>>> ISA ON1193a ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> *From:* canufnet-bounces at list.web.net [mailto:
> >>>> canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] *On Behalf Of *Ian Wilson
> >>>> *Sent:* 2012/06/05 10:54 AM
> >>>>
> >>>> *To:* 'Canadian Urban Forest Network'
> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [CANUFNET] CTLA appraisals in Ontario****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Oliver,****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> In the Pacific NW ISA Chapter we gave staghorn sumac a rating of
> 55.
> >>
> >>>> In my area (interior British Columbia) sumac is somewhat invasive
> >>>> and
> >>
> >>>> I would tend to rate it lower, although I have seen it used
> >>>> successfully for stabilizing steep banks and it also seems to be
> >>>> very
> >>
> >>>> drought resistant.***
> >>>> *
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Acer negundo has a bad reputation for good reasons, but there is a
> >>>> clone of Acer negundo that we have experimented with in the last
> >>>> five
> >>> years ?
> >>>> Acer negundo ?Sensation?.  It?s a male cultivar (no seeds or
> >>>> boxelder
> >>
> >>>> bugs), it has an attractive reddish leaf colour (year round) and is
>
> >>>> a
> >>
> >>>> medium size tree.  It is relatively fast growing so I suspect in
> the
> >
> >>>> long run it might have some of the weak wood and decay issues as
> the
> >
> >>>> Acer negundo species, but in the right place I think it might be a
> >>>> good tree choice.  I have been impressed with this tree in parking
> >> lot
> >>>> islands and in sidewalk cutouts where there is very limited soil
> and
> >
> >>>> harsh conditions that would kill most trees.  At a Canadian Tire
> >>>> parking lot near my house I have watched some of these trees over
> >>>> the
> >>
> >>>> last 8 years growing in very small volumes of soil and as a result
> >>>> they are growing quite slowly, but they don?t seem to be showing
> any
> >
> >>>> symptoms of decline or stress and they aren?t lifting any asphalt
> >> (not
> >>>> yet anyway) in spite of the lack of any root barriers.  ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> One tree that I?ve been impressed with as an American elm
> >>>> alternative
> >>
> >>>> is Zelkova serrata.  We don?t have too many of them but they seem
> to
> >
> >>>> be very vigorous and well adapted to boulevards and difficult
> sites,
> >
> >>>> and quite
> >>>> attractive.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> I don?t think we?ve ever paid a nursery / landscaper for a quote ?
> I
> >
> >>>> would expect they would offer free quotes if they want our
> >>>> business.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Ian Wilson****
> >>>>
> >>>> City of Kelowna****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> *From:* canufnet-bounces at list.web.net [
> >>>> mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net
> >>>> <canufnet-bounces at list.web.net>]
> >>
> >>>> *On Behalf Of *Oliver Reichl
> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 04, 2012 7:18 AM
> >>>> *To:* Canadian Urban Forest Network
> >>>> *Subject:* [CANUFNET] CTLA appraisals in Ontario****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Greetings:****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm doing a large appraisal project that has brought up a couple of
>
> >>>> interesting issues. I'm keen to hear your opinions.****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) the Ontario supplement does not contain a species rating for
> >>>> Staghorn sumac, *Rhus typhina*. What would you consider the best
> >>>> alternative to use for a species rating? (I have one in mind ...
> >>>> just
> >>
> >>>> curious to hear what others may have used and why).****
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) *Acer negundo* (crapwood) and *Ulmus americana* (disease-prone)
> >> are
> >>>> not available in the marketplace. What would you consider the best
> >>>> alternatives to use for replacement plant material? (Again, I have
> >>>> ones in mind ... but curious to hear what others suggest or may
> have
> >> used
> >>> and why).
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) quotes for replacement trees and their delivery/installation are
> >> an
> >>>> integral part of the valuations. How much, if anything, would you
> >>>> pay
> >>
> >>>> a nursery or landscaping firm for a quote?
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>> ** **
> >>>>
> >>>> Looking forward to any replies,
> >>>>
> >>>> Oliver K. Reichl, B.E.S.(Hons)
> >>>> Consulting Arborist-Ecologist
> >>>> ISA Certified Arborist #ON-1178A
> >>>> 18 Larue Mills Rd.
> >>>> 1000 Islands, ON  K0E 1R0
> >>>> Tel: 613-923-8833
> >>>> Email: careofthetrees at gmail.com
> >>>> Web: www.oliverkilian.com/treecare****
> >>>>
> >>>> Please review the City of Brampton e-mail disclaimer statement at:
> >>>> www.brampton.ca/en/Info-Centre/Pages/Privacy-Statement.aspx
> >>>>
> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was
> >>> scrubbed...
> >>> URL:
> >>>
> >>
> <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20120609/fa9d68da/
> >> at
> >> tach
> >>> ment-0001.htm>
> >>>
> >>> End of CANUFNET Digest, Vol 89, Issue 5
> >>> ***************************************
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

-- 
Yours truly,

Oliver K. Reichl, B.E.S.(Hons)
Consulting Arborist-Ecologist
ISA Certified Arborist #ON-1178A
18 Larue Mills Rd.
1000 Islands, ON  K0E 1R0
Tel: 613-923-8833
Email: careofthetrees at gmail.com
Web: www.oliverkilian.com/treecare
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20120618/6bdcb2b5/attachment-0001.htm>