@mathisje, thanks for respectful your response. Yes, all is posted online on the website. See here: https://www.davis-meeker-oak.org/arborist-viewpoints. The esteemed arborist's company, Tree Solutions, is in fact the very same company that performed an assessment for the city arborist and concluded that the tree can stay standing. The city arborist's final report astoundingly ignores this and contradicts it. He even attaches the Tree Solutions memo to his report. But most people don't read it. They just read his conclusion. And so the false narrative persists. The city arborist has claimed multiple times in later legal documents that "a team of arborists" determined the tree must go. He should not be defended, in light of his inaccurate statements.
As to core samples, that's not what will tell you about safety for Garry oaks. They're quite different from other trees. As the city's arborist himself said in an internal email (see the above link) that contradicts his final report, oaks can remain viable even with a fair amount of interior decay in the main stem. In fact, as oaks age, they inevitably hollow out. That is their standard aging process, and oaks live hundreds of years with hollow stems. This is because as they hollow out, new wood forms around the hollow that is stronger than the wood it replaced. It becomes a sturdy tube, essentially. The hollows are what make such great cavities for wildlife.
Because of their unique longevity, Norway has a national law protecting old, hollow, and dead oaks. See https://www.davis-meeker-oak.org/norway-ancient-oak-protections. They are pretty cool trees. We ought to protect them the same way.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
