Tree lovers vs. tree huggers

Regarding the July 30 Metro article “Tragedy in Great Falls injects new emotions into debate over trees”:

As a professional arborist who has been consulted on numerous legal cases involving fatalities and injuries caused by fallen trees and who does tree-risk assessments on a regular basis, I am always concerned when I read about people who want to know whether a tree is “healthy.”

Loading...

Comments

• Weigh In
• Corrections?

Personal Post

Apparently, the tree that fell and caused the death of Albert Carl Roeth III was “healthy” (i.e., it was full of foliage), but the main criteria for judging tree risks is “structural stability.” That’s a lot different than “healthy.”

In severe-weather events that create high winds and saturated soil, healthy trees may blow over, while sick trees may remain standing. This is because there is a lot of wind resistance in a heavy canopy (the sail effect), while wind will whistle through the sparse canopy.

The article mentioned “tree lovers” a couple of times. I consider myself to be a tree lover but not a tree hugger. It seems as if tree huggers want to save every single tree with leaves, no matter what. As a tree lover, I believe that some trees are assets and some trees are liabilities.

Lew Bloch, Potomac