H
Joined: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 3691
|
H
Deja vu! A similar thread from 2004:
Tikis are tree mutilation...
Similar story in that case -- a news article about a carver (in that case it was Wayne Coombs) getting in trouble carving live trees on city property.
Here's my chiming in that thread, and I'll say it again now (in Quote-o-Vision!):
On 2004-05-20 16:50, Humuhumu wrote:
Usually, the narrow planting strip along the sidewalk is city property, and while the city will turn a blind eye and let you plant things there, what goes there is up to the city. That's what I know from being a property owner in Seattle -- your local mileage may vary.
That aside, even if there have been trees that have survived the process of having their outer bark layers removed, it's just like skin, and it ain't just there to look pretty. Plants need that layer as a protective barrier against disease, not to mention the structural support it provides, and that in many plants the main conduction of water to other parts of the plant lie just below this surface, kind of like veins & arteries. Yes, a tree might live through it, just like if you stripped a good chunk of skin off the legs of a person, he might live through it. But it is mutilation, and not to be done lightly.
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying don't be surprised when the tree falls over and conks out some unsuspecting passer-by because the tree is dead and the roots have withered.
|
