Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Urban Trees
#16
From my limited understanding, the Director’s explanation is correct. Tapping a maple tree correctly may or may not have an impact on the longevity of the tree. For a tree worth many thousands of dollars and benefitting many people, though, I can’t see how it’s worth the risk to let one individual tap it and potentially curtail its life.

In this case, it hopefully the fellow has done his research, knows not to tap in the same place in consecutive years, and will know not too tap too deep and so on. His last quote (“I’m sure if there was real big risk (of harm for) tapping your tree”) doesn’t suggest he’s got a lot of knowledge of the techniques, though- absolutely, tapping a tree in certain ways can cause premature death.

I strongly dislike articles like this by local media. “But the city won’t let him” is not quite accurate. He didn’t ask permission. He didn’t, it seems to me, do his due diligence before tapping a tree on someone else’s property. Why is it news when the city asks him to remove something from a tree they own?

By the way, I don't think you ought to put more than two taps in any size tree, but obviously if it's on your property, it's your business.
Reply


#17
From a liability perspective, I appreciate the City's position. If they knowingly allow this, then they open the door for more egregious abuse elsewhere.

Perhaps they could create a program where a resident can petition to tap a tree in this way, but I doubt it would be cost-effective.
Reply
#18
(02-22-2018, 09:44 AM)KevinL Wrote: From a liability perspective, I appreciate the City's position. If they knowingly allow this, then they open the door for more egregious abuse elsewhere.

I think the City is perfectly entitled to prohibit the behaviour, and there is less risk to the tree, certainly, with this approach. I do think, though, that the liability they are exposed to here is very minimal, and that they could have dealt with this particular situation without needing to outright prohibit the activity. Tapping is done without harming the tree all over the Canada, there's no reason that it couldn't be done safely here as well. We're not dealing with an epidemic of tree tapping in Waterloo, this is a one-off situation that could have been dealt with in a myriad of better ways.

The big problem I have is that this tapping endeavor is a net positive from what I can see both for the individual, but also for the community, but because it's easier to just be heavy handed with the law in individual cases like this, that's what happens. Situations like vehicles parking in bike lanes, which does present a real liability to cyclists, motorists, and the city, is only rarely enforced because more people are affected and it is therefore a more politically costly rule to enforce.
Reply
#19
Question: What can go wrong with tapping a tree?

Stuart McLean describes it best in the Vinyl Cafe story "Maple Syrup" about what happens when Dave decides he is going to make maple syrup in his backyard. If you're not familiar with the story, you can listen to the full episode here.
Reply
#20
No tapping, but I used to trim the red maple (that I had planted) on the boulevard in front of my childhood home. Never had any problem, but there was always the sense that I was not really supposed to do that. On the other hand, our tree was beautiful while the neighbouring (City-planted) trees that were trimmed by the City were not nearly as nice.
Reply
#21
(02-22-2018, 10:03 AM)jamincan Wrote:
(02-22-2018, 09:44 AM)KevinL Wrote: From a liability perspective, I appreciate the City's position. If they knowingly allow this, then they open the door for more egregious abuse elsewhere.

I think the City is perfectly entitled to prohibit the behaviour, and there is less risk to the tree, certainly, with this approach. I do think, though, that the liability they are exposed to here is very minimal, and that they could have dealt with this particular situation without needing to outright prohibit the activity. Tapping is done without harming the tree all over the Canada, there's no reason that it couldn't be done safely here as well. We're not dealing with an epidemic of tree tapping in Waterloo, this is a one-off situation that could have been dealt with in a myriad of better ways.

The big problem I have is that this tapping endeavor is a net positive from what I can see both for the individual, but also for the community, but because it's easier to just be heavy handed with the law in individual cases like this, that's what happens. Situations like vehicles parking in bike lanes, which does present a real liability to cyclists, motorists, and the city, is only rarely enforced because more people are affected and it is therefore a more politically costly rule to enforce.

But it is prohibited by the bylaws, so the default action is to enforce the bylaws (bicycle lanes aside for the moment). The best course would have been for the owner to formally request permission from the city. Might or might not work, but the bylaw officer is just enforcing the rules, not making decisions on whether they make sense or not.
Reply
#22
If we are going to force developers to preserve and plant trees, it doesn't make much sense to allow landowners to freely chop theirs down, or, by way of improper sap tapping, kill and necessitate the removal of said same tree.
Reply


#23
(02-22-2018, 01:41 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(02-22-2018, 10:03 AM)jamincan Wrote: I think the City is perfectly entitled to prohibit the behaviour, and there is less risk to the tree, certainly, with this approach. I do think, though, that the liability they are exposed to here is very minimal, and that they could have dealt with this particular situation without needing to outright prohibit the activity. Tapping is done without harming the tree all over the Canada, there's no reason that it couldn't be done safely here as well. We're not dealing with an epidemic of tree tapping in Waterloo, this is a one-off situation that could have been dealt with in a myriad of better ways.

The big problem I have is that this tapping endeavor is a net positive from what I can see both for the individual, but also for the community, but because it's easier to just be heavy handed with the law in individual cases like this, that's what happens. Situations like vehicles parking in bike lanes, which does present a real liability to cyclists, motorists, and the city, is only rarely enforced because more people are affected and it is therefore a more politically costly rule to enforce.

But it is prohibited by the bylaws, so the default action is to enforce the bylaws (bicycle lanes aside for the moment). The best course would have been for the owner to formally request permission from the city. Might or might not work, but the bylaw officer is just enforcing the rules, not making decisions on whether they make sense or not.

It isn't necessarily true that the "default" is to enforce the bylaw, even disregarding parking/bike lanes for a moment, most bylaws are enforced on a complaint basis.  The default is to do nothing, and only if there is a complaint, do enforcement.
Reply
#24
Many bylaws (not sure if it's "most," but definitely a lot, and certainly the ones related to property standards and so on) are enforced on a complaint basis, but not all. Are bylaws related to trees enforced on a complaint basis in Waterloo? It doesn't make it clear in the article. They may well be enforced proactively when staff see infractions.
Reply
#25
(02-22-2018, 02:55 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Many bylaws (not sure if it's "most," but definitely a lot, and certainly the ones related to property standards and so on) are enforced on a complaint basis, but not all. Are bylaws related to trees enforced on a complaint basis in Waterloo? It doesn't make it clear in the article. They may well be enforced proactively when staff see infractions.

I too wondered if this wasn't the result of a complaint.
Reply
#26
Almost certainly a complaint. But once the complaint is made, the bylaw officer needs to do the enforcement.
Reply
#27
(02-22-2018, 04:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Almost certainly a complaint. But once the complaint is made, the bylaw officer needs to do the enforcement.

Not if the complaint is about cars parked in a supposedly (but not actually) segregated bicycle lane.
Reply
#28
Heh. Someone just spoke at Kitchener City Council (very passionately, he was almost in tears) about his neighbours cutting down trees and the city not doing enough to prevent that from happening. A councillor then backed him up saying they were doing everything they could to make sure this would stop.

And yet, we have a massive, likely 100+ year old tree in our front yard which the city actually owns, and I LOVE, and it has a few dead branches on it. We called the city and asked if they wouldn't mind removing the dead branches as every winter they shower down a bit on the sidewalk an road and create a bit of a safety hazard.

Their solution? Marked it for removal. The whole thing. Shrug of the shoulders at the guy who came to the door to give us the news.

So infuriating.
Reply


#29
Perhaps it's more than a 'few dead branches', and they fear it's not long for the world?

Can you appeal if an arborist can determine otherwise, or is a city tree completely in their hands?
Reply
#30
I thought the region was in charge of the tree removal by-law. Can it be appealed to them?

Coke
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links