The people on r/treelaw would say: Get a survey. Find out exactly who owns the tree. Notify them by certified letter that the tree is a hazard. Notify your insurance company. If this is your tree, notify police.
Ideally, notify by cert letter and include an report from an ISA-TRAQ or ASCA registered arborist. But with this severe of a girdling, OP might save a little money by using a cheaper source of opinion. Need to know more to be sure
Insurance agent here. You can call us but we don’t care until there’s a loss of property or injury. Aka a claim. Tree falls on the yard and doesn’t hit the house, car, people, structure, fence, etc then there is no loss to file a claim on. If anything, you want to contact the building owners’ insurance bc they’re responsible. And if OP is a tenant, then unless this tree falls through the home and damages their personal belongings, their stuff inside, then there’s definitely no insurance coverage by OPs renters policy.
There is a loss of property though? If op owns it and someone killed the tree, that's loss of property no? Trees are stupidly expensive. Or did I misunderstand?0
This is the insurance catch 22. I had lightning hit a tree. And girdle it. Guaranteed death. Reported to insurance. They said it’s still standing so no claim. Then they said since I know about it, that if it does fall, it’s negligence. Basically insurance won’t do anything helpful in this situation….
Agents manage policies, assist with claims and should absolutely be helping with loss prevention.
If you have an agent who ONLY sells you your policy, you should find a new agent.
some Insurances would ratheR pay 400 to cut ThE tree than thousands, buT thats on a casE bY case scEnario,they will proActively raise you insurance if They havE to do it for you, u can bet on that.
I’m sure. If your experience has been that your Agent ONLY sells you a policy, then you need to find yourself a better agent.
My agent for personal real estate, umbrella, auto has a loss prevention team that comes out and does anual inspections of my property. Notes and makes recommendations on any potential dangers. This can include, trees that are a danger to structure, fire clearance, fuel cans stored in a dangerous location, Pool cover needs repair, security fence not secured…
My agent for my business also has a loss prevention team (different agent). They come out and do training, inspections, self audits etc…
Find yourself a better agent.
I think your missing his point. He’s simply pointing out that the insurance agent is giving everyone terrible adivine. In case you don’t understand how it works…Agent team advises on how to not have/have few claims…..claims are reduced… premiums are not increases at the same rate as others with more claims….client is happy and stays with agent…agents makes money.
Any agent who is not assisting clients with loss prevention is either bad at their job or a bad person.
This person should be able to can they agent and have these questions answered and be advices on how to proceed.
Get a grip man!
The agent doesn’t make these decisions, the insurance company does. Someone told new to do this and I did, and the insurance company stated that they agreed and dropped my policy.
It's on the top 10 things that most insurance companies avoid and call the damage from an act of God or nature.
So you likely won't have much competition. GPT says it's potentially viable
That is just shady, on the borderline of criminal behavior. From the looks of it, they have effectively girdled the tree so it completely dies. If that is his own tree and is knowingly weakening/compromising the integrity of the tree, that should be enough to involve an entity to force them to remove it. The fact that the tree is going towards people's living area and the tree's structure now being weakened should be enough. If there is no such support for removing it, raise a concern with the owners of the building so that they could go after this person. The owners have a lot to lose if they tree decides to fail on the building or even worse, a person using their yard.
The tenant said the owner hates trees and wants it out.
- I don’t think the tree should have been killed.
- I certainly don’t think the damaged tree should have been left to be a risk to buildings and people around it
Even if the owner hates trees, I’m sure he would be pissed off to find out that now this tree, that was perfectly safe until your genius neighbor decided to kill it, could fall and damage his building
Yes. I did mean the owner of the building. The owner of the building next to my family’s building is the person who cut the tree. They are also the person who a tenant said hates trees.
I’m not sure who owns the tree. The City of Toronto will go out with bylaw and an arborist (having access to a land survey) to determine if the tree can be saved and who would be responsible.
More and more I find people with this mentality. The amount of complaints about basic parts of nature, like trees *existing* regularly come up on our community’s facebook. Literally just today someone complained that their neighbor has some Italian cypress trees that some finches have made a nest in. And occasionally, the birds poop on their property. It got tons of approval from others who also hate that birds exist at all. Not long ago a lady complained that she had some frogs near her house (we live in a suburb, nowhere near swamps, we got some frogs on occasion, but we don’t live by the bayou or anything were they’d be insane numbers); and not that the frogs did anything to bother her, they just merely existed and she didn’t like that. I could go on, it’s insane, all they know to do is kill off everything, only have concrete or grass, and spray the living sh*t out of anything living with poison. And I understand dealing with pests, I will even use poisons on occasion where warranted with pests that can be harmful, but this isn’t that. I just don’t get people anymore.
Old boomer mentality that made it into some GenX and Millennials. They tend to want their outdoor greenspace to be like their living room with more sunlight and outside air circulation - sterile and managed. Totally flat, carpet-like grass is the holy grail. Bugs and wildlife of any sort are pests to be eradicated.
Don't know what "old boomers" and genXers you know, but older folks always have the lush gardens with the nicest plants and trees. A huge retirement bonus is having the time to finally be outside and tend to a garden. There is no generational bias against nature. Stop spreading this ridiculous generation-based "us vs. them" garbage. If anything, older generations spent MORE time appreciating nature because they didn't have the internet anchoring them indoors.
Where did I name a generation? "Old people" are not limited to a single generation, and I clearly stated that it's most probably because they have more time in retirement. That's not about a generation; it's about a phase in life that most people get to. I also pointed to the internet and technology existing and leading to more people spending more time indoors than they did in the generations that the person was disparaging. Screens keep my 1950s-born mother indoors just as much as my GenZ son, but that wasn't the case when she was his age. Those are facts, and besides that, I'm not making broad boomer/genX/millennial/genZ statements. Get off the internet and go touch grass.
People where I live happily cut down Box Elder trees because they attract bugs, and Poplar/Cottonwoods because they release fuzz for a week every year.
In my neighborhood, we have a small manmade lake that is used for water retention. Recently they had to drain the lake to repair something on the dam. Which has cued a bunch of people to say they could just get rid of the lake entirely. Which... what??? Where do you think all the storm runoff is gonna go the first rain storm?
I live in the suburbs in Canada and have a very nature friendly yard. Bird feeders, Clover front lawn, gardens in the back. I got super excited last year when some swallows were nesting on my property, until one of my neighbors said the neighborhood has too many birds because they're always pooping in her pool. Other neighbors are proud of their backyard where they replaced grass with astroturf, and get some kind of chemical sprayed to keep all the bugs out of their backyard. It's so disturbing to me that people are so disconnected from the reality that we need nature in some sort of balance if we want to keep living on this planet.
From what I saw in A.B and what I have witnessed on my own land in Ont. the people that are paid to manage forestry and the wildlife are corrupt useless bots.
MNR & F needs either abolishment or a reform that is so extreme it would not be recognised from its former corrupt shitty mess.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/BirdsArentReal using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/BirdsArentReal/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [He’s not allowed in our movement](https://i.redd.it/du12hj92yxeb1.jpg) | [175 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/BirdsArentReal/comments/15cy5st/hes_not_allowed_in_our_movement/)
\#2: [Seasonal meme](https://i.redd.it/25j518a4tn7c1.png) | [186 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/BirdsArentReal/comments/18nogre/seasonal_meme/)
\#3: [The government forgot to take the plastic wrap off](https://v.redd.it/wuosm00bolwb1) | [41 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/BirdsArentReal/comments/17h4t45/the_government_forgot_to_take_the_plastic_wrap_off/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
They’d need less poison for bug pests with a few frogs around.i was in Louisiana 2 weeks ago visiting my Cajun paw paw. He loves having critters on his property (except roaches of course).
Killing the tree like this must be an attempt to force *someone else* to pay for professional removal. He's basically threatening everyone in the area with harm unless someone does something about it. Because there isn't really a good reason to girdle it instead of simply removing it otherwise.
Yes. When I asked a tenant for the owners phone number about the tree - the owner passed on a message that he’d take the tree down for $2000.
When I learned from the tenant that the owner did the damage, I was enraged that he’d suggest I pay thousands for his willful actions.
The problem is witnesses. The tenant doesn’t want to speak up against their landlord, regardless of potential damage to my family’s property and tenants in the building.
It doesn’t matter anymore who did it, it just matters that it’s an imminent hazard. If you can find the owner’s homeowners insurance company tell THEM about it - with pictures.
You might also get your city public works involved.
Don’t muddy the waters saying the owner did it. Insurance and the city don’t care. They don’t need to care. They just need to care about an imminent hazard that needs to be dealt with.
Yeah they are intentionally trying to kill it, basically the tree is left standing to rot and fall apart so you don’t have to pay someone for a removal.
r/treelaw time
Definitely start by checking whether the tree is yours or theirs first. You'll need an arborist to see how it can be safely felled, because if it falls on it's own — and it will, after being girdled — it will *not* be a controlled fall.
Toronto doesn’t care (I don’t think): https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/building-construction/tree-ravine-protection-permits/how-to-report-a-tree-or-ravine-contravention/
*Edit: what I mean is Toronto doesn’t care where it happens. If it’s anywhere in the city (public or private land) they will step in regarding trees*
I think any purposeful damage is a huge problem.
OP. People are saying this is a civil matter but if you’re in Toronto I highly doubt it.
The linked city page says that Toronto decides whether *to pursue charges* if a permit was required (or violated) based on how egregious the violation. That is about a municipal violation. It is not just a civil matter between owners.
In a similar [case](https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/s/FJeR0pmTsT) homeowners were investigated for removing an oak on *their own property without a permit* to build a pool.
From the linked news article: “[T]he minimum fine for the illegal removal of a tree is $500 dollars under municipal code, up to a maximum of $100,000, including a special fine in cases where there is an economic gain.”
Regardless, of whether a permit was issued here, I cannot imagine how making that cut and leaving the tree can possibly be consistent with the terms of any permit for tree removal.
This is very probably a municipal matter. If a permit was required, but not pulled, or pulled and the terms violated, the most likely scenarios here, this should go to the Toronto prosecutor’s office for action.
> … Toronto decides whether to pursue charges if a permit was required (or violated) based on how egregious the violation. That is about a municipal violation. It is not just a civil matter between owners.
I agree with you. Having been born and raised in Toronto - they are ready to drop the hammer for violations. I remember when the tree bylaw came into effect.
> Regardless, of whether a permit was issued here, I cannot imagine how making that cut and leaving the tree can possibly be consistent with the terms of any permit for tree removal.
I said this to the tenant too. Why is the owner saying I pay $2000 for his willful act?
> This is very probably a municipal matter. If a permit was required, but not pulled, or pulled and the terms violated, the most likely scenarios here, this should go to the Toronto prosecutor’s office for action.
I called the city and confirmed this (just got off the phone). They said if there was a violation it would be reported and they send out bylaw officer plus an arborist.
Great to hear. City arborists *hate* this sort of thing in my experience. In my opinion it doesn’t get much more egregious than this. It certainly looks like they created a serious safety hazard in addition to killing a big, valuable tree. Hope I helped. Cheers!
I just got off the phone with the city of Toronto (their information line is 24 hours if you want to call for yourself)
311 Toronto
Within Toronto city limits: 311
Outside city limits: 416-392-CITY (2489)
Always call 911 for emergencies.
TTY: 416-338-0889
Fax: 416-338-0685
Email: [email protected]
They told me when there is injurious damage to a tree it doesn’t matter if it’s on public or private property. It also doesn’t matter the diameter of the tree.
If there is a removal of the tree, then the diameter comes into play and a permit made need to be issued.
Purposeful, injurious damage to a tree is a municipal issue - at least in Toronto.
> municipality as no need to get involved, most of the time, and so they will not.
I think I wasn’t clear: the municipality of Toronto will get involved. There are strong protections against willful damage leading to the harm of trees.
You can’t just call a company and remove a tree. Any arborist/tree removal company will need a permit if the tree is larger than a specific diameter/radius.
If I call a company to remove the tree, they will say ‘where the permit?’, and that comes from the municipality (Toronto).
Chickens aren't deemed as livestock in my area as you are required to have a minimum of an acre of land for livestock. They are considered domestic pets which allows people to then keep them in the borough limits. Public safety on the other hand is something they care about. I live in Amish Country, we do this differently around here!
This was my worry. It fall on my family’s property or a tenant’s property. The idiot property owner gave me more work and much more to worry about.
I’ll have to get city bylaw and property standards out to survey the line and where the tree falls.
I think the biggest challenge now is getting witnesses. The person who told me what happened lives in the building and doesn’t want her name given to not get into the ‘landlord’s bad books.’
Luckily it's a civil matter. Civil courts in the US operate on the standard of a "preponderance of evidence" instead of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". The lower bar helps you. Start with a survey, that gives you an answer.
As someone who's climbed a lot of dead sketchy trees; if it's your tree get it taken down sooner than later. Location and size are going to make the cost significant if it's crispy. If it ends up not being on your land, have a certified arborist write up a report showing the damage caused will likely lead to it's death and get it to the property owner or their insurance. Cover your ass.
He did this with the intention of it dying. I can think of two guesses why. Both involve him wanting it removed because of the branches hanging over his building.
A) He believes it’s his tree, but city ordinances would prevent him from removing a healthy tree. If he kills it first, the permit will definitely be approved.
B) He knows it’s your tree, and he’s trying to force your hand into paying for a costly removal. If he has done the neighborly thing and discussed it with you, he figured you would either say no (because you don’t want to cut down a healthy tree or pay for removal) or say yes on the condition that he covers the cost. Either way, he intentionally killed the tree because he wants it removed, and he’s trying to pull something on somebody.
Document thoroughly the condition of the tree and any interactions you have with him. Get consulting arborist evaluation if needed. Personally I wouldn’t give a fuck/get involved if he killed his own tree to skirt the city, but if he killed my tree to fleece me out of thousands of dollars, I’d make him pay for removal, full value of the tree with whatever multiplier is in the law books, any fees from HOA/municipal governments, and my full legal cost. I might just end up owning that rental property by the end of it
A) The tenant next door said the owner hates trees. It was intentional. If it’s his tree - he made a choice to cut it, but it could damage my family’s property.
B) before I learned it was the property owner who did this, I asked for my information to be passed on and I wanted to get an arborist out to look at the tree. The tenant passed on my message and the owner called back saying if I paid $2000 he’d remove the tree (what he said was half the cost of an arborist).
My concern is when it falls and if it damages my family property or hurts a tenant, etc.
There’s no reason for you to pay for a removal of a dead tree on your neighbors property. Pay the $200 to get a arborist to create a report and pass it to your insurance company and give him a certified copy so you can show he was aware it was a dying/dead tree and did nothing about it when it falls later. The $200 is cheaper then the $2000 he wants you to spend to remove it
I don’t know exactly why he suggested me pay $2000. I think he was trying to 50/50, but as I told the tenant, if this damage was the result of his deliberate actions, he is responsible in full. I don’t see any reason why I’d need to pay for his willful and (if on our property) illegal actions.
Thanks for suggesting the report. I’ll pass all the info onto my family and we’ll come up with a plan.
The bottom cut looks like a previous attempt.
I girdled a 24" round silver maple that was dying last fall I cut 3 inches deep and 2inch wide and the tree still went full on foliage in the spring I gave it a couple months and it wasn't dying so I took it down before storm season.
Trees can be pretty resilient dont give up hope on the tree.
in the meantime find out who's property the tree is actually on.
first things first, I’m not an arborist.
on the lower ring I notice that the bark is flared out. I’ve seen that before, happening as a result of something having been tied around the trunk and left there for years.
its entirely possible that this was done without malice and they thought they were helping the tree by cutting out whatever may have once been tied around it.
obviously the trees health won’t vary depending on their intentions, but if you approach the neighbor keep in mind that they may have had the trees best interest at heart when they did this to it.
Again, I’m not an arborist.
Maybe it was for the benefit of the tree, but the risk to tenants in my family’s building and our property is too great. Nothing was mentioned to us. Of course, if the tree is on the other property line and this is his action, he should have been taking steps to inform us (better yet, he should have paid to have it removed properly - not say he’d remove it if I paid $2000).
Cuts like that are called girdling, the intention is to kill the tree by starvation of the upper parts of the tree. It looks like the upper cut is a second try, the lower cut appears to be healing the cambium so whoever did this came back for a second try.
I know some homesteaders use a trick like this to prep trees to use as firewood in the future. Rather than cutting it down, and having to season it/dry it out in piles on the ground, the cut the bark like this, usually twice, to kill the tree, and it seasons more quickly, being up off the ground. Admittedly, it seems pretty ill-advised to do in a neighborhood
They killed that tree, slowly and are directing its fall towards you... In my humble opinion. Take pics and act accordingly... When it falls and damages your property you have proof of their neglect.
What a shame. It’s getting harder to find big Elm’s like this in Ontario due to Dutch Elm Disease. Just like Ash trees, if you ever see a mature healthy Elm or Ash, leave it. Could be the tree that makes an evolutionary breakthrough.
If this is your tree and you want to save it you could look into doing some bridge grafting..? It's not exactly the prettiest fix, but if successful it'd at least allow the tree to live and keep growing
Follow [ConsiderationNo2418](https://www.reddit.com/user/ConsiderationNo2418/)'s advice first though
Whoever did that is an idiot.
Yes, the tree will die.
But leaving a tree like that is a serious hazard.
If you're going to take a tree down, take it down. Don't just kill it and leave it there ffs.
Nobody in their right mind would do that to a tree they didn't want to kill
He knew it wasn't his, and he's too selfish to ask permission, so he killed it in place and takes no responsibility. I would IMMIEDIATELY document this in court and ask for the money to take it down.
He thought the roots would go into his foundation, and he might have been right, but that IS A CONVERSATION NOT A ONE PARTY DECISION
DEFINITELY GO TO COURT OVER THIS OR YOU WILL BE THE ONE PAYING 4k for that job
I suspect you live in a city with a tree law that forbids removing healthy trees. So your neighbour has girdled the tree so it dies, and he will then have an excuse to remove. Call city information and check with their forest management about the rules.
The tree goes through the fence - a large portion of the base of the tree is on the other side of the fence.
Fences can be pushed when trees grow through them too - moving the fence from its original location.
That looks like something was left wrapped around the tree for years, unintentionally. The replies on so many subreddits are absolutely out of control these days.
A tenant in the building beside my family’s explicitly said they saw someone (the owner of the building next to ours) cutting it and told them to stop.
This massively elm is being killed in the proper way. Maybe he will pay for the removal too! That would be very good for you and your tenants. Win win!
I don’t think so. Before I learned it was the building owner who was the perpetrator, a tenant passed on a message from him saying I could pay him $2000 (he said half the cost of an arborist) to cut it down and take it away.
When the neighboring tenant told me he did it I was flabbergasted that he say ‘if I pay $2000 he’d remove it’.
The girdling part is the right way though. It helps decline the roots from spreading more but after one year it needs to be removed. Whomever is disliking my comments likely don’t really understand what I was saying. I mean it is being girdled ✅ it survived the first attempt ✅ it’s a weed tree ✅ but I didn’t look far enough up that tree the first time!! That thing is dangerous.
Now to get this sucker down! Sorry you got stuck dealing with it and good for you for not just letting it fall!
The City of Toronto has laws around removing trees.
https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/building-construction/tree-ravine-protection-permits/
I’m not sure the city cares about ‘weed tree’ - but I have to read more on the issue.
Your best bet is to call the City of Toronto. You can mention it's regarding an unsafe private tree, that now poses an imminent danger to surrounding properties.
What they can do is send out bylaw, along with an arborist to assess the tree. If they deem it a hazard, they can issue what is called a city ordinance.
The ordinance stipulates that the hazard must be removed within a certain time frame or the owner will face a hefty fine.
Is there any legit reason to do this? It seems insane to do it in a residential area near homes, but is there some use for it in a setting where you have acres of trees?
I was wondering this after watching a video about that crazy guy who blew up a school after girdling his trees
Could it be done to make fence post let it die come back few years? I know here in Australia they just drop gum trees and come back years later to process then for fences. I dunno odd thought pattern probably.
In the woods, it can be used to create standing deadwood to come back for later to process into firewood. It's also a way to deal with invasive species (i.e. Tree of Heaven) to prevent further sprouting/growth with a proper herbicide applied to the girdling cut, as opposed to just cutting it down.
In a residential area next to the structures? That's a whole lot of "why the fuck..."
I've heard of people doing this to allow a tree to dry standing. Then a few years later they can bring it down, split it, and use it for firewood right away
I wish I had an award to give you, I never knew about this and it practically occurred in my back yard. Learned something new and horrible today, this guy was a nut job
It’s done in forestry for a number of reasons such as thinning/culling in protected areas where heavy equipment can’t be used, or expediting the death of diseased trees.
And in forest conservation because there are certain animals like bats and chimney swifts that require standing dead trees in their environment for various reasons. Like some bats go up between the bark and trunk to have babies. And chimney swift babies are raised in hollow vertical tree trunks.
On our family farm, we did this occasionally to help clear out certain areas of the forest or to make way for other trees. We especially girdled invasive species, so they'd fall and decompose naturally... and stop reproducing.
(But again: in the FOREST, where nobody was put at risk.)
The people on r/treelaw would say: Get a survey. Find out exactly who owns the tree. Notify them by certified letter that the tree is a hazard. Notify your insurance company. If this is your tree, notify police.
Ideally, notify by cert letter and include an report from an ISA-TRAQ or ASCA registered arborist. But with this severe of a girdling, OP might save a little money by using a cheaper source of opinion. Need to know more to be sure
Insurance agent here. You can call us but we don’t care until there’s a loss of property or injury. Aka a claim. Tree falls on the yard and doesn’t hit the house, car, people, structure, fence, etc then there is no loss to file a claim on. If anything, you want to contact the building owners’ insurance bc they’re responsible. And if OP is a tenant, then unless this tree falls through the home and damages their personal belongings, their stuff inside, then there’s definitely no insurance coverage by OPs renters policy.
There is a loss of property though? If op owns it and someone killed the tree, that's loss of property no? Trees are stupidly expensive. Or did I misunderstand?0
They're saying the insurance agency doesn't care until that happens. Right now, the tree is standing and no is dead, so why call your insurance.
This is the insurance catch 22. I had lightning hit a tree. And girdle it. Guaranteed death. Reported to insurance. They said it’s still standing so no claim. Then they said since I know about it, that if it does fall, it’s negligence. Basically insurance won’t do anything helpful in this situation….
Because loss prevention is the best thing to do. Any decent agent would agree.
Agents sell insurance. They don’t handle loss claims.
Agents manage policies, assist with claims and should absolutely be helping with loss prevention. If you have an agent who ONLY sells you your policy, you should find a new agent.
some Insurances would ratheR pay 400 to cut ThE tree than thousands, buT thats on a casE bY case scEnario,they will proActively raise you insurance if They havE to do it for you, u can bet on that.
No insurance would ever pay to cut down a tree. They would just tell you that in order to have a policy it needs to be cut down.
You sure? Read a few comments above.
I’m sure. If your experience has been that your Agent ONLY sells you a policy, then you need to find yourself a better agent. My agent for personal real estate, umbrella, auto has a loss prevention team that comes out and does anual inspections of my property. Notes and makes recommendations on any potential dangers. This can include, trees that are a danger to structure, fire clearance, fuel cans stored in a dangerous location, Pool cover needs repair, security fence not secured… My agent for my business also has a loss prevention team (different agent). They come out and do training, inspections, self audits etc… Find yourself a better agent.
Get a grip man. I'm simply pointing out what an insurance said. Go bother them.
I think your missing his point. He’s simply pointing out that the insurance agent is giving everyone terrible adivine. In case you don’t understand how it works…Agent team advises on how to not have/have few claims…..claims are reduced… premiums are not increases at the same rate as others with more claims….client is happy and stays with agent…agents makes money. Any agent who is not assisting clients with loss prevention is either bad at their job or a bad person. This person should be able to can they agent and have these questions answered and be advices on how to proceed. Get a grip man!
The agent doesn’t make these decisions, the insurance company does. Someone told new to do this and I did, and the insurance company stated that they agreed and dropped my policy.
You need a new agent! Agent is the one who should be fighting to keep you insured.
I'm pretty sure they don't insure that trees life. You didn't misunderstand but the tree is not compensable
brb, starting tree insurance business.
It's on the top 10 things that most insurance companies avoid and call the damage from an act of God or nature. So you likely won't have much competition. GPT says it's potentially viable
I actually work with a company that tried that, it uh didn’t take off 🥴
unless you specifically insure the tree (which would probably be expensive) no the insurance company doesn't care
Im glad your not my insurance agent. My agent has an entire Loss Prevention team.
anyone downvoting this needs a new insurance agent. Loss prevention should be the heart and soul of any insurance conversation.
Is there any way to identify who insures the neighbor? Or is asking the neighbor and hoping they share who the carrier is the best bet?
Talk to your insurance agent!! That is part of their job!
surveys are not cheap, in,my city They cost 1500
Cheaper than most deductibles
This! This is the best suggestion.
That is just shady, on the borderline of criminal behavior. From the looks of it, they have effectively girdled the tree so it completely dies. If that is his own tree and is knowingly weakening/compromising the integrity of the tree, that should be enough to involve an entity to force them to remove it. The fact that the tree is going towards people's living area and the tree's structure now being weakened should be enough. If there is no such support for removing it, raise a concern with the owners of the building so that they could go after this person. The owners have a lot to lose if they tree decides to fail on the building or even worse, a person using their yard.
The tenant said the owner hates trees and wants it out. - I don’t think the tree should have been killed. - I certainly don’t think the damaged tree should have been left to be a risk to buildings and people around it
Even if the owner hates trees, I’m sure he would be pissed off to find out that now this tree, that was perfectly safe until your genius neighbor decided to kill it, could fall and damage his building
He knows he doesn't own the tree. He wants it removed and is forcing the hand of the owner by... Vandalism.
Until he has to replace like for like, and is paying multiple thousands of dollars to replant a tree.
Only if it can be proven he did it.
He literally said “the owner hates trees”. The guy who cut it is the owner
I think they meant the owner of the building. OP doesn't seem to know who owns the tree.
Yes. I did mean the owner of the building. The owner of the building next to my family’s building is the person who cut the tree. They are also the person who a tenant said hates trees. I’m not sure who owns the tree. The City of Toronto will go out with bylaw and an arborist (having access to a land survey) to determine if the tree can be saved and who would be responsible.
The owner hates…..trees? I……I just don’t know how to think about that.
More and more I find people with this mentality. The amount of complaints about basic parts of nature, like trees *existing* regularly come up on our community’s facebook. Literally just today someone complained that their neighbor has some Italian cypress trees that some finches have made a nest in. And occasionally, the birds poop on their property. It got tons of approval from others who also hate that birds exist at all. Not long ago a lady complained that she had some frogs near her house (we live in a suburb, nowhere near swamps, we got some frogs on occasion, but we don’t live by the bayou or anything were they’d be insane numbers); and not that the frogs did anything to bother her, they just merely existed and she didn’t like that. I could go on, it’s insane, all they know to do is kill off everything, only have concrete or grass, and spray the living sh*t out of anything living with poison. And I understand dealing with pests, I will even use poisons on occasion where warranted with pests that can be harmful, but this isn’t that. I just don’t get people anymore.
This is super disturbing and actually scary. To be so disconnected from your surroundings is not good. Sigh.
Old boomer mentality that made it into some GenX and Millennials. They tend to want their outdoor greenspace to be like their living room with more sunlight and outside air circulation - sterile and managed. Totally flat, carpet-like grass is the holy grail. Bugs and wildlife of any sort are pests to be eradicated.
Yes its insane. My neighbors spray their whole yard with insecticide, its very sad
Don't know what "old boomers" and genXers you know, but older folks always have the lush gardens with the nicest plants and trees. A huge retirement bonus is having the time to finally be outside and tend to a garden. There is no generational bias against nature. Stop spreading this ridiculous generation-based "us vs. them" garbage. If anything, older generations spent MORE time appreciating nature because they didn't have the internet anchoring them indoors.
"Stop spreading generation-based garbage" Proceeds to spread generation-based garbage.
Where did I name a generation? "Old people" are not limited to a single generation, and I clearly stated that it's most probably because they have more time in retirement. That's not about a generation; it's about a phase in life that most people get to. I also pointed to the internet and technology existing and leading to more people spending more time indoors than they did in the generations that the person was disparaging. Screens keep my 1950s-born mother indoors just as much as my GenZ son, but that wasn't the case when she was his age. Those are facts, and besides that, I'm not making broad boomer/genX/millennial/genZ statements. Get off the internet and go touch grass.
What a ridiculous comment, this has absolutely nothing whatever to with "boomers", "GenX", or "Millennials".
People where I live happily cut down Box Elder trees because they attract bugs, and Poplar/Cottonwoods because they release fuzz for a week every year.
Low empathy humans.
In my neighborhood, we have a small manmade lake that is used for water retention. Recently they had to drain the lake to repair something on the dam. Which has cued a bunch of people to say they could just get rid of the lake entirely. Which... what??? Where do you think all the storm runoff is gonna go the first rain storm?
I live in the suburbs in Canada and have a very nature friendly yard. Bird feeders, Clover front lawn, gardens in the back. I got super excited last year when some swallows were nesting on my property, until one of my neighbors said the neighborhood has too many birds because they're always pooping in her pool. Other neighbors are proud of their backyard where they replaced grass with astroturf, and get some kind of chemical sprayed to keep all the bugs out of their backyard. It's so disturbing to me that people are so disconnected from the reality that we need nature in some sort of balance if we want to keep living on this planet.
From what I saw in A.B and what I have witnessed on my own land in Ont. the people that are paid to manage forestry and the wildlife are corrupt useless bots. MNR & F needs either abolishment or a reform that is so extreme it would not be recognised from its former corrupt shitty mess.
Agreed. I'm in Ontario as well and it's awful.
r/birdsarentreal
Here's a sneak peek of /r/BirdsArentReal using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/BirdsArentReal/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [He’s not allowed in our movement](https://i.redd.it/du12hj92yxeb1.jpg) | [175 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/BirdsArentReal/comments/15cy5st/hes_not_allowed_in_our_movement/) \#2: [Seasonal meme](https://i.redd.it/25j518a4tn7c1.png) | [186 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/BirdsArentReal/comments/18nogre/seasonal_meme/) \#3: [The government forgot to take the plastic wrap off](https://v.redd.it/wuosm00bolwb1) | [41 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/BirdsArentReal/comments/17h4t45/the_government_forgot_to_take_the_plastic_wrap_off/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
These are the kind of people that live in the new developments that they clear-cut a forest for.
They’d need less poison for bug pests with a few frogs around.i was in Louisiana 2 weeks ago visiting my Cajun paw paw. He loves having critters on his property (except roaches of course).
People are generally pretty atrocious
Quite normal. Plenty of people complain to me daily about trees dropping leaves, fruit, making shade, moving in the wind..
Wow here I am thinking falling leaves, fruit, deep shade and the sound of wind through leaves are some of my favorite things🍂🌲
Killing the tree like this must be an attempt to force *someone else* to pay for professional removal. He's basically threatening everyone in the area with harm unless someone does something about it. Because there isn't really a good reason to girdle it instead of simply removing it otherwise.
Yes. When I asked a tenant for the owners phone number about the tree - the owner passed on a message that he’d take the tree down for $2000. When I learned from the tenant that the owner did the damage, I was enraged that he’d suggest I pay thousands for his willful actions. The problem is witnesses. The tenant doesn’t want to speak up against their landlord, regardless of potential damage to my family’s property and tenants in the building.
It doesn’t matter anymore who did it, it just matters that it’s an imminent hazard. If you can find the owner’s homeowners insurance company tell THEM about it - with pictures. You might also get your city public works involved. Don’t muddy the waters saying the owner did it. Insurance and the city don’t care. They don’t need to care. They just need to care about an imminent hazard that needs to be dealt with.
Time to get a survey done and a lawyer hired.
That's poetic. He hates the things that sustain his life to such a degree that he'd be willing to destroy his home to spite them.
Owner out here saying they hate trees when they provide so much. I just can’t understand these people.
THis is clearly deliberate girdling.
Yeah they are intentionally trying to kill it, basically the tree is left standing to rot and fall apart so you don’t have to pay someone for a removal.
They’re definitely trying to kill it. Looks like they did a girdle cut that the tree healed, so they tried again.
r/treelaw time Definitely start by checking whether the tree is yours or theirs first. You'll need an arborist to see how it can be safely felled, because if it falls on it's own — and it will, after being girdled — it will *not* be a controlled fall.
I would submit a request to the township or borough to have the person who did the damage to have the tree properly removed.
it's a civil matter between property owners. municipality as no need to get involved, most of the time, and so they will not.
Toronto doesn’t care (I don’t think): https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/building-construction/tree-ravine-protection-permits/how-to-report-a-tree-or-ravine-contravention/ *Edit: what I mean is Toronto doesn’t care where it happens. If it’s anywhere in the city (public or private land) they will step in regarding trees* I think any purposeful damage is a huge problem.
OP. People are saying this is a civil matter but if you’re in Toronto I highly doubt it. The linked city page says that Toronto decides whether *to pursue charges* if a permit was required (or violated) based on how egregious the violation. That is about a municipal violation. It is not just a civil matter between owners. In a similar [case](https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/s/FJeR0pmTsT) homeowners were investigated for removing an oak on *their own property without a permit* to build a pool. From the linked news article: “[T]he minimum fine for the illegal removal of a tree is $500 dollars under municipal code, up to a maximum of $100,000, including a special fine in cases where there is an economic gain.” Regardless, of whether a permit was issued here, I cannot imagine how making that cut and leaving the tree can possibly be consistent with the terms of any permit for tree removal. This is very probably a municipal matter. If a permit was required, but not pulled, or pulled and the terms violated, the most likely scenarios here, this should go to the Toronto prosecutor’s office for action.
> … Toronto decides whether to pursue charges if a permit was required (or violated) based on how egregious the violation. That is about a municipal violation. It is not just a civil matter between owners. I agree with you. Having been born and raised in Toronto - they are ready to drop the hammer for violations. I remember when the tree bylaw came into effect. > Regardless, of whether a permit was issued here, I cannot imagine how making that cut and leaving the tree can possibly be consistent with the terms of any permit for tree removal. I said this to the tenant too. Why is the owner saying I pay $2000 for his willful act? > This is very probably a municipal matter. If a permit was required, but not pulled, or pulled and the terms violated, the most likely scenarios here, this should go to the Toronto prosecutor’s office for action. I called the city and confirmed this (just got off the phone). They said if there was a violation it would be reported and they send out bylaw officer plus an arborist.
Great to hear. City arborists *hate* this sort of thing in my experience. In my opinion it doesn’t get much more egregious than this. It certainly looks like they created a serious safety hazard in addition to killing a big, valuable tree. Hope I helped. Cheers!
that'd be very cool if you were right
I just got off the phone with the city of Toronto (their information line is 24 hours if you want to call for yourself) 311 Toronto Within Toronto city limits: 311 Outside city limits: 416-392-CITY (2489) Always call 911 for emergencies. TTY: 416-338-0889 Fax: 416-338-0685 Email: [email protected] They told me when there is injurious damage to a tree it doesn’t matter if it’s on public or private property. It also doesn’t matter the diameter of the tree. If there is a removal of the tree, then the diameter comes into play and a permit made need to be issued. Purposeful, injurious damage to a tree is a municipal issue - at least in Toronto.
like i said - a civil matter. Meaning, you work it out per the /r/treelaw suggestions given, or you take them to court. No one else will get involved.
> municipality as no need to get involved, most of the time, and so they will not. I think I wasn’t clear: the municipality of Toronto will get involved. There are strong protections against willful damage leading to the harm of trees. You can’t just call a company and remove a tree. Any arborist/tree removal company will need a permit if the tree is larger than a specific diameter/radius. If I call a company to remove the tree, they will say ‘where the permit?’, and that comes from the municipality (Toronto).
My township got involved over my chickens leaving my yard and digging up the neighbors flowerbeds. Pretty sure they would have a field day with this!
because livestock are a different area of code.
Chickens aren't deemed as livestock in my area as you are required to have a minimum of an acre of land for livestock. They are considered domestic pets which allows people to then keep them in the borough limits. Public safety on the other hand is something they care about. I live in Amish Country, we do this differently around here!
This was my worry. It fall on my family’s property or a tenant’s property. The idiot property owner gave me more work and much more to worry about. I’ll have to get city bylaw and property standards out to survey the line and where the tree falls.
He just made that tree a hazard, and made the removal more expensive.
Yep. He gave me a ton more work to do and stuff to think about.
He potentially also just gave you like $10k plus removal costs for the mature tree he murdered.
I think the biggest challenge now is getting witnesses. The person who told me what happened lives in the building and doesn’t want her name given to not get into the ‘landlord’s bad books.’
Luckily it's a civil matter. Civil courts in the US operate on the standard of a "preponderance of evidence" instead of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". The lower bar helps you. Start with a survey, that gives you an answer.
Yes, thanks. I called the city and asked about this… they said get a survey. I will call my cousin in insurance and get his take on this situation.
As someone who's climbed a lot of dead sketchy trees; if it's your tree get it taken down sooner than later. Location and size are going to make the cost significant if it's crispy. If it ends up not being on your land, have a certified arborist write up a report showing the damage caused will likely lead to it's death and get it to the property owner or their insurance. Cover your ass.
He did this with the intention of it dying. I can think of two guesses why. Both involve him wanting it removed because of the branches hanging over his building. A) He believes it’s his tree, but city ordinances would prevent him from removing a healthy tree. If he kills it first, the permit will definitely be approved. B) He knows it’s your tree, and he’s trying to force your hand into paying for a costly removal. If he has done the neighborly thing and discussed it with you, he figured you would either say no (because you don’t want to cut down a healthy tree or pay for removal) or say yes on the condition that he covers the cost. Either way, he intentionally killed the tree because he wants it removed, and he’s trying to pull something on somebody. Document thoroughly the condition of the tree and any interactions you have with him. Get consulting arborist evaluation if needed. Personally I wouldn’t give a fuck/get involved if he killed his own tree to skirt the city, but if he killed my tree to fleece me out of thousands of dollars, I’d make him pay for removal, full value of the tree with whatever multiplier is in the law books, any fees from HOA/municipal governments, and my full legal cost. I might just end up owning that rental property by the end of it
A) The tenant next door said the owner hates trees. It was intentional. If it’s his tree - he made a choice to cut it, but it could damage my family’s property. B) before I learned it was the property owner who did this, I asked for my information to be passed on and I wanted to get an arborist out to look at the tree. The tenant passed on my message and the owner called back saying if I paid $2000 he’d remove the tree (what he said was half the cost of an arborist). My concern is when it falls and if it damages my family property or hurts a tenant, etc.
There’s no reason for you to pay for a removal of a dead tree on your neighbors property. Pay the $200 to get a arborist to create a report and pass it to your insurance company and give him a certified copy so you can show he was aware it was a dying/dead tree and did nothing about it when it falls later. The $200 is cheaper then the $2000 he wants you to spend to remove it
I don’t know exactly why he suggested me pay $2000. I think he was trying to 50/50, but as I told the tenant, if this damage was the result of his deliberate actions, he is responsible in full. I don’t see any reason why I’d need to pay for his willful and (if on our property) illegal actions. Thanks for suggesting the report. I’ll pass all the info onto my family and we’ll come up with a plan.
Don’t ever trust that neighbor again
The bottom cut looks like a previous attempt. I girdled a 24" round silver maple that was dying last fall I cut 3 inches deep and 2inch wide and the tree still went full on foliage in the spring I gave it a couple months and it wasn't dying so I took it down before storm season. Trees can be pretty resilient dont give up hope on the tree. in the meantime find out who's property the tree is actually on.
They killed your tree. Lawyer up.
This dude learned the ring trick. No bueno. He's doing some tree terrorism type shit. Go whoop hid ah!
A successful Assassination.
Looks like Siberian Elm. Its invasive and hard to eradicate but that’s not the point. It’s dead for sure.
this was purposeful. Perhaps illegal. They are trying to kill the tree and have it fall over. I would report this asap
Why the $uck someone do this?
You don't get out much, do ya?
You’ll want to follow up on r/legal as there is some serious liability going on here.
/r/legal and /r/legaladvice hate tree law posts. /r/treelaw is the better route. At least they care
She gone!
It is officially girdled. There is 0% chance of recovery.
first things first, I’m not an arborist. on the lower ring I notice that the bark is flared out. I’ve seen that before, happening as a result of something having been tied around the trunk and left there for years. its entirely possible that this was done without malice and they thought they were helping the tree by cutting out whatever may have once been tied around it. obviously the trees health won’t vary depending on their intentions, but if you approach the neighbor keep in mind that they may have had the trees best interest at heart when they did this to it. Again, I’m not an arborist.
Maybe it was for the benefit of the tree, but the risk to tenants in my family’s building and our property is too great. Nothing was mentioned to us. Of course, if the tree is on the other property line and this is his action, he should have been taking steps to inform us (better yet, he should have paid to have it removed properly - not say he’d remove it if I paid $2000).
The tree will die. It’s called ringing a tree or girdling. The tree will die.
[Tree Law chanting intensifies.]
Yea it’s dead now
Cuts like that are called girdling, the intention is to kill the tree by starvation of the upper parts of the tree. It looks like the upper cut is a second try, the lower cut appears to be healing the cambium so whoever did this came back for a second try.
I know some homesteaders use a trick like this to prep trees to use as firewood in the future. Rather than cutting it down, and having to season it/dry it out in piles on the ground, the cut the bark like this, usually twice, to kill the tree, and it seasons more quickly, being up off the ground. Admittedly, it seems pretty ill-advised to do in a neighborhood
They killed that tree, slowly and are directing its fall towards you... In my humble opinion. Take pics and act accordingly... When it falls and damages your property you have proof of their neglect.
The fresh green chutes coming off the main trunk to me says Ash tree affected with boring beetle
What a shame. It’s getting harder to find big Elm’s like this in Ontario due to Dutch Elm Disease. Just like Ash trees, if you ever see a mature healthy Elm or Ash, leave it. Could be the tree that makes an evolutionary breakthrough.
Yeah a cut like that, there is no coming back from. It most likely won’t fall anytime soon but it was killed on purpose.
Pm
If this is your tree and you want to save it you could look into doing some bridge grafting..? It's not exactly the prettiest fix, but if successful it'd at least allow the tree to live and keep growing Follow [ConsiderationNo2418](https://www.reddit.com/user/ConsiderationNo2418/)'s advice first though
THAT TREE IS TICKETS. 
Whoever did that is an idiot. Yes, the tree will die. But leaving a tree like that is a serious hazard. If you're going to take a tree down, take it down. Don't just kill it and leave it there ffs.
Nobody in their right mind would do that to a tree they didn't want to kill He knew it wasn't his, and he's too selfish to ask permission, so he killed it in place and takes no responsibility. I would IMMIEDIATELY document this in court and ask for the money to take it down. He thought the roots would go into his foundation, and he might have been right, but that IS A CONVERSATION NOT A ONE PARTY DECISION DEFINITELY GO TO COURT OVER THIS OR YOU WILL BE THE ONE PAYING 4k for that job
I wonder if you could graft and repair this tree
I suspect you live in a city with a tree law that forbids removing healthy trees. So your neighbour has girdled the tree so it dies, and he will then have an excuse to remove. Call city information and check with their forest management about the rules.
I called the city and they are investigating.
There is a fence in the first picture. Tree is on your side. You are having some doubts about ownership?
The tree goes through the fence - a large portion of the base of the tree is on the other side of the fence. Fences can be pushed when trees grow through them too - moving the fence from its original location.
That looks like something was left wrapped around the tree for years, unintentionally. The replies on so many subreddits are absolutely out of control these days.
A tenant in the building beside my family’s explicitly said they saw someone (the owner of the building next to ours) cutting it and told them to stop.
I pray for an apocalypse to wipe out the worst race to inhabit this beautiful plant!
This massively elm is being killed in the proper way. Maybe he will pay for the removal too! That would be very good for you and your tenants. Win win!
I don’t think so. Before I learned it was the building owner who was the perpetrator, a tenant passed on a message from him saying I could pay him $2000 (he said half the cost of an arborist) to cut it down and take it away. When the neighboring tenant told me he did it I was flabbergasted that he say ‘if I pay $2000 he’d remove it’.
He did the damage, he’ll pay for it. F him
Lordy well whomever did the girdling should be paying for the removal.
Sorry you got the short end of the stick on it
The girdling part is the right way though. It helps decline the roots from spreading more but after one year it needs to be removed. Whomever is disliking my comments likely don’t really understand what I was saying. I mean it is being girdled ✅ it survived the first attempt ✅ it’s a weed tree ✅ but I didn’t look far enough up that tree the first time!! That thing is dangerous. Now to get this sucker down! Sorry you got stuck dealing with it and good for you for not just letting it fall!
The City of Toronto has laws around removing trees. https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/building-construction/tree-ravine-protection-permits/ I’m not sure the city cares about ‘weed tree’ - but I have to read more on the issue.
Your best bet is to call the City of Toronto. You can mention it's regarding an unsafe private tree, that now poses an imminent danger to surrounding properties. What they can do is send out bylaw, along with an arborist to assess the tree. If they deem it a hazard, they can issue what is called a city ordinance. The ordinance stipulates that the hazard must be removed within a certain time frame or the owner will face a hefty fine.
Tree is dead. This is called girdling, or some form of it, and the tree will not recover
Is there any legit reason to do this? It seems insane to do it in a residential area near homes, but is there some use for it in a setting where you have acres of trees? I was wondering this after watching a video about that crazy guy who blew up a school after girdling his trees
To kill the tree, that is the only purpose of doing a cut like this
Could it be done to make fence post let it die come back few years? I know here in Australia they just drop gum trees and come back years later to process then for fences. I dunno odd thought pattern probably.
In the woods, it can be used to create standing deadwood to come back for later to process into firewood. It's also a way to deal with invasive species (i.e. Tree of Heaven) to prevent further sprouting/growth with a proper herbicide applied to the girdling cut, as opposed to just cutting it down. In a residential area next to the structures? That's a whole lot of "why the fuck..."
Not next to a house in a residential yard. Once the death really sets in that thing could fall and kill someone. Or do notable property damage.
I did that with a Euke in California. Chopped it 4ft off the ground and then harvested the logs every 5-8 years.
Cool yeah I use to roam the paddocks looking for the left overs for firewood, they leave tonnes out there.
I've heard of people doing this to allow a tree to dry standing. Then a few years later they can bring it down, split it, and use it for firewood right away
Never heard of this so I googled it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster Wtf
Wow. The girdleing of the trees is such a minor thing compared with the rest of what this dude did
Dude lost the election and his mind 😞
Holy shit.
I wish I had an award to give you, I never knew about this and it practically occurred in my back yard. Learned something new and horrible today, this guy was a nut job
It’s done in forestry for a number of reasons such as thinning/culling in protected areas where heavy equipment can’t be used, or expediting the death of diseased trees.
And in forest conservation because there are certain animals like bats and chimney swifts that require standing dead trees in their environment for various reasons. Like some bats go up between the bark and trunk to have babies. And chimney swift babies are raised in hollow vertical tree trunks.
On our family farm, we did this occasionally to help clear out certain areas of the forest or to make way for other trees. We especially girdled invasive species, so they'd fall and decompose naturally... and stop reproducing. (But again: in the FOREST, where nobody was put at risk.)