Wednesday, July 18, 2012

DNV considers ban on cutting big trees

Homeowners could face fines for felling without permit. 

Does the safety aspect tip the scales? 


Anonymous said...

What was missing during this discussion was safety. About 10 years ago my neighbours cut down 8 healthy large trees. Within 5 years 3 of my trees had to come down. The arborist says it was because the roots were entwined and the dead roots rotted and killed my trees.

I wonder why they bought their house in the first place. If they wanted a cleared yard, they should have bought a cleared yard. It cost me thousands of dollars to pay to have my trees taken down. Why should I have had to pay that because they didn't like raking up the leaves and they wanted more sun?

Boogieman on Mt. Seymour said...

Of all the hypocrisy that abounds in the District of North Vancouver. If you are a mountain bike trail builder, with NSMBA's Trail Adoption Program, you have permission from DNV to do this kind of thing to the trees (and ecosystem) inside the public forest (watch video):

The day DNV throws hefty fines/charges at these "fine folk" and their well-monied corporate sponsors, banning mountain biking activities such as the one in the video (on DNV land), then I may start taking DNV bans on cutting down trees on private property, more seriously.

Out of sight, out of mind? It ain't. It is a crying sham to have such a damaging double standard. And what about the liability of little kids helping out with sharp and dangerous tools laying about...? If a forest tree falls on a child, while mountain bike "forest digging for gold dirt" that DNV sanctioned, does DNV care? Blaaah!

Anonymous said...

Mocreal, you are off topic.

Please take this discussion back to your thread on mountain biking.

John, please start keeping these discussions on topic.

Anonymous said...

Wow. This blog is being overtaken by foul mouthed children. Hey John, how about minding the shop so people can discuss the topics without the vulgarity?

Anonymous said...

6:32 you are vulgar.

Anonymous said...

John, I guess it's too much to ask that the blog maintain a certain degree of civility. We can all agree yet still remain respectful to one another however it seems that some here prefer to behave poorly. No doubt because they can hide behind anonymity. I wonder if this is how they would behave and speak if they were talking to one another face to face? I don't care for censorship, but I think that the owner of this blog should be deleting posts that have no bearing on the discussion topic presented.

Anon 6:39PM, how can you know what anyone else does? How exactly is any poster here ruining the municipality? One could argue that your behaviour here is an example that the municipality (not to mention our species) has already been ruined. You need to grow up and learn to have a conversation, rather than try to alienate those who may have a different perspective from your own. Do you have the mental fortitude to do that?

Anonymous said...

But, there is a double-standard!
If arborists are telling Anon 11:35AM that Anon's trees were killed by entwined rotting roots from earlier cut down trees of Anon's neighbours then we can begin to understand the ecosystem of tree roots.

Here is an excellent video that explains the ecosystem of tree root networks, trees, forest, mycorrhizae.

Live and learn, "Grasshopper"(Anon 4:12PM)

Anonymous said...

We can have intelligent conversation without resorting to name calling. It degrades the conversation, whether for or opposed. Share your arguments, but no name calling and harassment.

John Sharpe said...

My advise is to ignore the 'name-calling' comments that have no substance. Sticks and stones may break my bones kind of idea. I will not get in to deleting comments unless there are personal attacks. I will however delete 5:08and 6:39

John Sharpe said...

To whomever is making disrespectful comments please refrain. Profanity even if abbreviated has no place on the blog. Please stick to the topic at hand as much as possible and have respect for others on the blog.

Thank you

Anonymous said...

Trees. A passionate subject on the N. Shore.

Love 'em in the forests, greenbelts and parkland.

Love ornamentals in residential neighbourhoods. No one should be able to destroy their neighbour's access to sunlight, view etc. by growing a full sized tree(s) so that it (they) negatively impact the neighbouring homes. The flora version of second hand smoke adversely impacting the guy next door.

If we left our lawns and gardens to grow wild we'd be slapped with an unsightly premises bylaw violation but for some reason if we manage a tree's growth it's a bad thing.

Just disagree with unrestricted growth and retention of full sized residential trees.

Anonymous said...

Unsightly Premises bylaw violation?


Never been enforced by the DNV,

Anonymous said...

You all missed it.

Anonymous said...

What profanity? Check out the Boogieman on Mount Seymour, Wed. 3:47.

What is a mountainbiking activist doing commenting on this thread? These people think their s doesn't stink.