[CANUFNET] Fate of elm tree on Parliament is decided

[Michael Richardson]

I think this tree is typical of so much that happens in the tree
inspection world.  Four reports from a 6 month period with differing
observations and conclusion; not one seems to be able to identify the
"sudden" decline.

There is no standard for tree inspections in Ontario so that might be
blamed but surely those that are doing inspections need to understand when
something more than visual is needed.  DED and phloem necrosis could have
been identified with some samples while soil tests would definitely have
identified de-icing salt in the soil.  Extent of the root system could
have been identified with a number of methodologies.  If you only use your
eyes you can miss a lot of important information and you cannot assess the
roots or soils.

Advanced assessment (meaning more than a limited visual assessment) of
important trees is often needed and arborists need to start doing more
than looking, identifying defects and making unrealistic and unfounded
conclusions and recommendations.

Michael


The Greenspace Alliance had
> access to 4 tree reports on the elm conducted between May 2018 and end of
> September 2018. We commented on those reports in a document sent to the
> committee members
> <http://greenspace-alliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Elm-condition-summary-v2.pdf>
> on March 18. At the meeting on April 2, PSPC pulled 2 more reports out of
> the hat. One of them was from 1995 and said the tree had 20 years to live.
> That was 24 years ago, and the elm's continued existence seemed to make it
> less credible. We were asking the committee to support a professional
> assessment of the tree after leaf out in a month or two. We thought this
> would be worth doing because we truly questioned the quality and value of
> the 3 assessments done last September.
>
> *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
> *Debra Isabel Huron*