Man vs. Earth

"Who gets to choose what life is worthy ?" What do you mean by this, BRT? And do you ask me if I will volunteer my life? Or my property?
I'm not getting the hair on my back up, just trying to communicate.
As for my property, I got home tonight and looked at my Boulevard tree. Not really mine but I take some care of it. Neither are my backyard trees mine. They are mine on paper but where they overhang property lines they belong to me and my neighbours. I care for my front trees for myself but also for the next generation. I'm just using this property while I'm here. It is not 'mine'.
As for my life, I don't believe I'm doing anything other than being a good conservation arborist. I believe I should give more of my life to deal with the elephant in the room that is my own consumption. This is what stresses me.
I believe in myself and my ways as a practicing urban forester, but I don't believe in the process I use to execute it. Like the guys in the racing extinction also admitted. And Suzuki has been criticized for. Not that I can compare to those guys who have made a huge impact on the general encironment and the awareness of it.
The government may be to blame but that is somewhat a waste of time. If the population of people who cares increases, and people like me not only care, but also practice better living, then the government will have no choice to support the demand of environmentalism. After all they are the biggest of the sheep in our countries. They preach whatever is mainstream and mainstream is shifting to more environmentalism. So keep up the good work and keep talking. But more than talking start/continue showing the better way. It's there. We just need to drum up the will power to choose it. And then a democratic government is forced to follow. The question is maybe, how do we get the corporations to lead and not just the public?
I'm an amateur politician, so correct me if I'm wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Redtree said:
"Who gets to choose what life is worthy ?" What do you mean by this, BRT? And do you ask me if I will volunteer my life? Or my property?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Overpopulation--will you give your life for "Mother Earth"? Humans are the problem right? Too many of them? So how much do you really believe that? Okay, how willing are you to act on it? Different ballgame, eh?
 
Your right. Population is a big issue. And Now I see where the yallqueda comment comes from, sort of. But To me, the ball game is more about changing the future than the present. Not mass murder or mass suicide. I have already suggested to my son and others that having less children (0-1) is more environmentally responsible. An idea that I was aware of before I had two of my own. But then again I came from four and my parents both from six, so changes will be slow. That's only natural. And I'm a little slow.
In a sense we can't be good to Mother Nature, we can only be closer to neutral. Closer to zero footprint. But there is power in advocacy. The producers of racing extinction and people like David Suzuki likely have a very significant, negative, footprint. Who has the biggest negative footprint? Follow that guy. they changed a lot of people's awareness which lead to a change in people's actions. Actually, a lot of the time I spend educating clients has likely saved trees other than the initial tree I was referring to. Has that bought me a carbon offset? Not that I'm required to have any offset. It has likely made some small difference that shaves a sad, small percentage off my massive footprint. Carbon offsetting may play some small role in the solution but I suspect it's mostly a political joke.
Maybe we should learn from the Amish?
I'm also aware that all the complaining about the problem isn't doing any good. The chatter needs to move towards solutions. This thread has done a lot of that so thanks to all those contributions to the solution, however small or big they may be.
The more aware we are of real solutions, the better we can adjust our needs and wants and habits. Then we can footprint less and live neutral more. But this takes a long time.
Now they are talking about hydrogen nuclear war on tv so maybe the population problem will be corrected, very quickly. But like a tree corrected with over sized cuts, it will be compromised to the point that it is a set back and not a correction at all. A fail.
I know I said we need to change the future more than the present. But I also believe it needs to start now. Not that I know how to change my own footprints with any speed, but at least I'm not ignoring the problem. And like I said, I'm slow.
I think this is also a problem. We believe that the next generation will fix it. The generation older than me sometimes says it's not a problem for their lifetime. How can they say that? They're alive now. Who am I to say? I'm alive, and all I do is save the odd tree and blab on Treebuzz. Burn diesel, maple and two stroke stihl oil. Stihl bio bar oil though. Hurray.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I can't read all the posts in this thread, and nor should I. But I've read a few, and even in that the night is getting away from me. I never weep for all the lost seed I spilled on the earth like some deranged modern-day Onan. But I never wanted to fuck my sister in law either, so we'll call it a push.

One of the great crimes against Nature is the case of the beautiful fish known as the Atlantic bluefin tuna. Thunnus thynnus. Whatever you decide about the environment or the possibility of overpopulation, try and explain why none of your children will be able to enjoy otoro, the belly of that marvelous fish, without feeling like a lurking pervert in the darkened corner of some sushi bar. I can barely find it on the menu anywhere in cities like Vancouver BC or Seattle WA, where only sustainable fish are embraced. Here in the West, it has to be flown in, and then you need to know a good fishmonger with no real morals - a doomsdayer with no hope for the future, like Mad Max with a maguro bocho, carving up that precious fish and selling it to the highest bidder.

A 500lb tuna recently sold for 1.8 million U.S. dollars. We may have pissed ourselves there.
 
I Appreciate all the thoughts. Perplexing as this discussion appears. There's lots to take away for myself. I'll have to spend a few to reread then, Maybe a change of scenery and some blood on my hands will remind me I'm just an animal at heart. Survive some elements. Thrive with less?Who knows what comes? Let earth show her strength!
 
JeffGu said:
Is this the Y'allQaeda recruitment thread?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of , but I'm not up on the current . Did you come up with the name? I have been known to be many things and stupid doesn't escape me. Although I don't really give a fuck ,maybe you could fill me in. So I can decide whether or not I may like it,or how much to hate it , just based on the sound of the words involved , I highly doubt I'm interested. Sounds like some radical group of southern draw lip bullshitters. Close? Unlike many I run into in life being wrong or looking small doesn't bother me. I'm well hung. I hang well. So what's the skinny GU? Thanks
 
Last edited:
'Being wrong or looking small doesn't bother me'. Treetopflyer thanks for that. Me neither.
If any didn't notice, that's exactly what I look like on this thread. Or maybe madmax or some deranged Onan?
So I wanted to post over my last photo, so as to look a little more normal. Normally I don't care, but I'm starting to picture myself as madmax. Or as some modern, hippy rebel.
Here is the tree I saved yesterday. The client had a dead Sugar and figured may as well remove the live one while we are at it, since it's multistemmed and in the lines.
No bylaw protection as it is undersized. Here's a mad idea. How about protecting potential upcoming beauties by lowering the bylaw diameter? Or having a lower hardwood diameter, depicted by species? I know, the Damn government can't see that this would make more money than it would cost. Plus they're worried about complaining residents. That's why we need to complain more about the lack of bylaws, the weaknesses in bylaws, and the lack of municipal cable usage, as they fear it labels the tree and creates a bad lawsuit in the event of failure. How about this. If a two stemmed linden tree is deemed dangerous, and then it fails due to no cable, then the law could say this is neglect. This time is coming and this time is up.
fe75e0aa900e75b137ef7295e688bd5b.jpg

Again after structural/reduction, maximum cuts 2", especially since over sized cuts are likely what killed the dead one.
1069360631611b956f7d8c0c83e6ed1e.jpg

Remember that this is Sugar Maple, already an urban vulnerable species, even more so in a front lawn (as opposed to the favourable back yard). So the application weight is very light, both in quantity and in max cut diameter. This does not mean it is a light dose.
Dosage and application weight must be separated. The dose is also a matter of application frequency. This Sugar can still receive a highly effective yet sensitive prescription, in order to extend life and not reduce it, as reduction can, and does do both. Without being directly critical of some of the previously posted reduction, it is noteworthy that reduction often reduces lifespan, especially when the tree is wounded more than necessary. I'm sure I've reduced a few trees lifespans. It's inevitable after 1000's of reductions. Just be very aware of cut size and purpose. Today, I need to reduce a Manitoba maple with hacking sized cuts. But the tree is comprised with decay, not just included bark or bad ratios, which are correctable over a longer time, with frequently applied, smaller cuts. Run on sentence, iPhone ninja master tip number 562: hit the plus sign in the reply box to get a better work screen.
If we return to this tree every 3-5 years instead of 7-10, and favour leaders more so than reduce codoms, then we can influence the structure over time. It is imperative to look at this way, otherwise the 'bio' part of biodynamics goes out the window with the lifespan of the tree. Not imperative to always apply every 3-5 years, but imperative to know when to apply lightly more frequently, as opposed to heavily less frequently. Maples are not good with large wounds, especially stressed, Boulevard maples.
In this Sugar, over time, the applications can move from structural/reduction to more of a thinning/structural app. This might make sense, depending on how you understand the terminology. Thinning is not gutting. It is not thinning out. It is thinning the outer crown edge, without reducing size. As stated for a long time by isa, I'm pretty sure.
Here is the tree I saved today.
b55f2e7a4236e14f9fdee5ddcedbc2ea.jpg

The request was to remove all three scots pine (which are moderately invasive). One was dead, one was almost dead.
I sold these by trying to best line up the benefits to the problem/client :)
For the maple it was a rental. Look out for those landlords that see maintenance not value. So I forgot about the shade speech. Instead I noted the value. Without it hiding the lines it quickly loses curb appeal. It needs to be clear of covered hydro but only by a 3 feet. The phone line is actually held higher by the tree. A perfect situation as sugars bark is tough and lines are further out of site. The fall colour is beautiful and in the fall, this house would sell in a heartbeat. Now the home is framed by two good sized sugars.
For the pine, retaining the tree provides protection and growth suppression for the cedar hedge. It also maintains wildlife and canopy cover. Oh wait, I forgot, nothing native will land or live here. Gimme a break, I guarantee there's natives using it. Not living off it like cutting lumber, but living of it by feeding it the poop and flying seeds. Those damn invasive, European, Homo sapiens.
I was going to post this in an earlier thread, but thought it fit well here too. Plus it posts over my dirty truck. I'm so self conscious of my dirty truck. Actually I was just tired of reading those words. I'd rather imagine everything is just fine and not give a ....
It's a big, or should I say small, beautiful world. I want to experience it, but less by taking too much of it, and more by living with it. I have a hard time communicating it, obviously, but I'm trying.
Sorry for criticizing those with a big house. Take it lightly, my best friends have over sized houses. Mine is still too big at 1800. I used to have the goal of keeping it under 2000. Now I have the goal that my next house is 800-1500. A wide range depending on the number of occupants. Ironically, the pattern here in GTA is to raise a family in a fairly large house and then to move into an even bigger one once the kids move out. Only to hear empty rooms and look like the last episode of hgtv. Looking like 2010 would just be gross. How about building a house right, and for a long time as a home, and not to a certain style every 5-7 years as a show house. I guess your right about 'control', BRT, they got us by the Balls, or should I say by the brains. Consuming is cool. That's a bummer. I thought we had control of ourselves.
I realize I have failed at looking more normal. At least I've succeeded at looking more different. Think different. Thinking normal won't change anything.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Treetopflyer said:
Did you come up with the name?
Click to expand...

Oh, no... the TaliBundy up there in Oregon has garnered plenty of ridicule without my help. Although, I confess to fanning the flames at every opportunity. I've been thinking, though, that the State of Oregon should be looking at possibly exploiting all the hoopla with an eye towards increasing tourism to the bird sanctuary. Of course, if there's anything I can do... any little thing to help out the local economy up there... they need only ask.

OREGON.webp
 
Redtree said:
'Being wrong or looking small doesn't bother me'. Treetopflyer thanks for that. Me neither.
If any didn't notice, that's exactly what I look like on this thread. Or maybe madmax or some deranged Onan?
So I wanted to post over my last photo, so as to look a little more normal. Normally I don't care, but I'm starting to picture myself as madmax. Or as some modern, hippy rebel.
Here is the tree I saved yesterday. The client had a dead Sugar and figured may as well remove the live one while we are at it, since it's multistemmed and in the lines.
No bylaw protection as it is undersized. Here's a mad idea. How about protecting potential upcoming beauties by lowering the bylaw diameter? Or having a lower hardwood diameter, depicted by species? I know, the Damn government can't see that this would make more money than it would cost. Plus they're worried about complaining residents. That's why we need to complain more about the lack of bylaws, the weaknesses in bylaws, and the lack of municipal cable usage, as they fear it labels the tree and creates a bad lawsuit in the event of failure. How about this. If a two stemmed linden tree is deemed dangerous, and then it fails due to no cable, then the law could say this is neglect. This time is coming and this time is up.
fe75e0aa900e75b137ef7295e688bd5b.jpg

Again after structural/reduction, maximum cuts 2", especially since over sized cuts are likely what killed the dead one.
1069360631611b956f7d8c0c83e6ed1e.jpg

Remember that this is Sugar Maple, already an urban vulnerable species, even more so in a front lawn (as opposed to the favourable back yard). So the application weight is very light, both in quantity and in max cut diameter. This does not mean it is a light dose.
Dosage and application weight must be separated. The dose is also a matter of application frequency. This Sugar can still receive a highly effective yet sensitive prescription, in order to extend life and not reduce it, as reduction can, and does do both. Without being directly critical of some of the previously posted reduction, it is noteworthy that reduction often reduces lifespan, especially when the tree is wounded more than necessary. I'm sure I've reduced a few trees lifespans. It's inevitable after 1000's of reductions. Just be very aware of cut size and purpose. Today, I need to reduce a Manitoba maple with hacking sized cuts. But the tree is comprised with decay, not just included bark or bad ratios, which are correctable over a longer time, with frequently applied, smaller cuts. Run on sentence, iPhone ninja master tip number 562: hit the plus sign in the reply box to get a better work screen.
If we return to this tree every 3-5 years instead of 7-10, and favour leaders more so than reduce codoms, then we can influence the structure over time. It is imperative to look at this way, otherwise the 'bio' part of biodynamics goes out the window with the lifespan of the tree. Not imperative to always apply every 3-5 years, but imperative to know when to apply lightly more frequently, as opposed to heavily less frequently. Maples are not good with large wounds, especially stressed, Boulevard maples.
In this Sugar, over time, the applications can move from structural/reduction to more of a thinning/structural app. This might make sense, depending on how you understand the terminology. Thinning is not gutting. It is not thinning out. It is thinning the outer crown edge, without reducing size. As stated for a long time by isa, I'm pretty sure.
Here is the tree I saved today.
b55f2e7a4236e14f9fdee5ddcedbc2ea.jpg

The request was to remove all three scots pine (which are moderately invasive). One was dead, one was almost dead.
I sold these by trying to best line up the benefits to the problem/client :)
For the maple it was a rental. Look out for those landlords that see maintenance not value. So I forgot about the shade speech. Instead I noted the value. Without it hiding the lines it quickly loses curb appeal. It needs to be clear of covered hydro but only by a 3 feet. The phone line is actually held higher by the tree. A perfect situation as sugars bark is tough and lines are further out of site. The fall colour is beautiful and in the fall, this house would sell in a heartbeat. Now the home is framed by two good sized sugars.
For the pine, retaining the tree provides protection and growth suppression for the cedar hedge. It also maintains wildlife and canopy cover. Oh wait, I forgot, nothing native will land or live here. Gimme a break, I guarantee there's natives using it. Not living off it like cutting lumber, but living of it by feeding it the poop and flying seeds. Those damn invasive, European, Homo sapiens.
I was going to post this in an earlier thread, but thought it fit well here too. Plus it posts over my dirty truck. I'm so self conscious of my dirty truck. Actually I was just tired of reading those words. I'd rather imagine everything is just fine and not give a ....
It's a big, or should I say small, beautiful world. I want to experience it, but less by taking too much of it, and more by living with it. I have a hard time communicating it, obviously, but I'm trying.
Sorry for criticizing those with a big house. Take it lightly, my best friends have over sized houses. Mine is still too big at 1800. I used to have the goal of keeping it under 2000. Now I have the goal that my next house is 800-1500. A wide range depending on the number of occupants. Ironically, the pattern here in GTA is to raise a family in a fairly large house and then to move into an even bigger one once the kids move out. Only to hear empty rooms and look like the last episode of hgtv. Looking like 2010 would just be gross. How about building a house right, and for a long time as a home, and not to a certain style every 5-7 years as a show house. I guess your right about 'control', BRT, they got us by the Balls, or should I say by the brains. Consuming is cool. That's a bummer. I thought we had control of ourselves.
I realize I have failed at looking more normal. At least I've succeeded at looking more different. Think different. Thinking normal won't change anything.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Red , your a hell of a communicator . I appreciate your posts. Thinking out loud is how it comes across. Nothing wrong with that. I'm guilty of it. I like the idea of this forum( treebuzz) as a place to unload thoughts. The internet is full of crazy shit I'm sure. I think in this thread just an attempt to raise awareness about crazy shit our earth deals with is good exposure for earth's sake if it makes anybody change thier attitude to even slightly respect our planet more than they did.. Of course an opposite effect is bound to be created with people who's heads up there ass...Or are spiteful jerkoffs . I'm no extreme environmentalist. This is one of my favorite shirts though. IMG_20160107_170137288.webp
 
JeffGu said:
Oh, no... the TaliBundy up there in Oregon has garnered plenty of ridicule without my help. Although, I confess to fanning the flames at every opportunity. I've been thinking, though, that the State of Oregon should be looking at possibly exploiting all the hoopla with an eye towards increasing tourism to the bird sanctuary. Of course, if there's anything I can do... any little thing to help out the local economy up there... they need only ask.

View attachment 35448
Click to expand...
I love loons .. Thanks..Sounds like some wackadoodledandy sum bitches over ther..what's their m.o.. Sound like us on this discussion?. August has his hands full in Oregon hunh? Lol
 
BRT said:
"Shigo I believe, was the guy that said that there is no waste in nature."
Did you know that tree roots grow as much as they possibly can--in length & girth? Regardless of the tree's nutritional needs? Ever see a cat kill a mouse, then just play with it? I've seen horses founder so bad that they cannot even walk on their front legs. Little waste--accurate; "no waste"--fairy tale.

"These nice folks want to increase there house from 5000 or more to 6000 or more. So they need a larger septic system. Luckily the expansion is into an area of EAB dead ash. A few small sugars will come down, and sadly, only a few reach the bylaw limit for replacements. But the bigger question is, 'why is it even legal to build a house greater than 3000 feet let alone 6000 feet?' 10 Foreign families would live in there.
People argue that it is there property, they should be able to do what they want. It's not though. It's earths property."
=Control...Who gets to choose what life is "worthy"? You redtree? Maybe you'll volunteer yours? Let's see how much you care about the planet. No, the fact is, everyone wants such things imposed on others.

This is the crux of the entire matter--the USA is the last place on earth where personal property has any meaning at all. Freedom trades in the currency of personal property. Do you realize that was one of the only laws that kept blacks subservient to whites after the Civil War. They couldn't own property. Without property ownership, they couldn't vote. Once environmentalists control what you can & cannot do with your property--it is no longer your property. And by the way--it will belong to someone. "Mother Earth" doesn't have an army. "Mother Earth" doesn't write & enforce law. Those who control the climate law will control your freedoms and mine, because they will control our property. Those resources equal power; which will be wielded to dominate and impose their will.

"Next time I hope I drive a Prius to carry me, or a bike cause I'm local. And I hope it's to Change a plan to a smaller house and requires a planting plan for the increase in forest. It's not funny. This will happen, at least somewhere. Probably in Europe.
Every leaf counts. Every litre of gas, every garbage bag, every square foot.
Here is an attempt to scale down the size of this small earth. Take a square piece of land 113x113 km. that is 1 degree by 1 degree. From one degree parallel to the next is 113km. The earth is small."
=More control. Do not pass go, place your head directly in the noose.
Click to expand...
You raise some good points ..you have a control problem though I sense..Do you believe in voluntarism ? Ha
 
Treetopflyer said:
I love loons...
Click to expand...

Yes, so nice to have a whole bin full of them to study! One of their wannabe Macho Militia members has been collecting funds on Facecrook for their cause... but apparently spent it all on a drinking binge. Some of them are actually staying at a motel, not the "compound" because... well revolutionary patriots can't actually be expected to suffer discomfort for their cause! Then it hit the news that most of them claiming to be ex-marines actually were never in the service and just like to dress up in combat uniforms and frighten school kids and bunnies. It looks like the whole revolution is kinda deteriorating into a pissin' match. They were begging for snack food, again, and PETA offered them some vegan jerky. Turning into a circus with camouflage clowns and yuppie hicks.
 
BRT said:
.....Did you know that tree roots grow as much as they possibly can--in length & girth? Regardless of the tree's nutritional needs? .....
Click to expand...

OK, we need to back the truck up here. Where did you hear that? Does that make sense to you? You do know that a tree's root system is part of its resource storage system as well as an access system.

There is no waste in nature. Everything in the natural world is a flowing solar- powered wave of light and darkness, growth and decomposition. It is not Disneyland, the world is both beautiful and brutal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom