|
|
|
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
lenaitch
Senior Member
Apparently!
Guy Tries To Trim A 100-Foot Palm Tree, Is Taken On A Wild Ride - Digg
A brave arborist in San Bernardino, California, climbed a 100-foot palm tree to chop off some fronds that might cause damage to humans and property.
Northern Light
Superstar
*cross-post* from the Toronto Ravine Strategy thread as that is over in politics and some don't look at those threads.
*************************
There is a report request headed to the Nov. 18th meeting of Executive Ctte via Councillor Pasternak, asking Parks, Forestry and Recreation to review the new Toronto Stewardship Manual.
This is a manual put together by coalition of groups and stakeholders to get City approval to do restoration/stewardship work without direct staff oversight.
It does so by prescribing a set of standards a volunteer would have to meet in terms of training to be deemed a 'Lead Steward' and be able to oversee certain works without City staff being on hand.
The report request is here: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.EX18.12
The manual itself is here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-158063.pdf
It should be noted, that the Task Force to Bring Back the Don was the City's original stewardship effort more than 3 decades ago, and was substantially volunteer with some City staff support and funding.
In the intervening years, City staff dedicated to this type of work have multiplied, but there has been a move to cut off any volunteer work without direct City staff oversight, which in turn limits the amount of volunteer opportunities
and the work that can be done.
Should the manual be adopted by the City, it would be a return to the older practice of letting people donate their time and expertise with less bureaucracy, and greater flexibility; albeit it with a more formalized structure around volunteer training and responsibilities.
*************************
There is a report request headed to the Nov. 18th meeting of Executive Ctte via Councillor Pasternak, asking Parks, Forestry and Recreation to review the new Toronto Stewardship Manual.
This is a manual put together by coalition of groups and stakeholders to get City approval to do restoration/stewardship work without direct staff oversight.
It does so by prescribing a set of standards a volunteer would have to meet in terms of training to be deemed a 'Lead Steward' and be able to oversee certain works without City staff being on hand.
The report request is here: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2020.EX18.12
The manual itself is here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-158063.pdf
It should be noted, that the Task Force to Bring Back the Don was the City's original stewardship effort more than 3 decades ago, and was substantially volunteer with some City staff support and funding.
In the intervening years, City staff dedicated to this type of work have multiplied, but there has been a move to cut off any volunteer work without direct City staff oversight, which in turn limits the amount of volunteer opportunities
and the work that can be done.
Should the manual be adopted by the City, it would be a return to the older practice of letting people donate their time and expertise with less bureaucracy, and greater flexibility; albeit it with a more formalized structure around volunteer training and responsibilities.
Northern Light
Superstar
Well, Councillor Ainslie just moved to sabotage the Stewardship Manual...........at today's Executive Committee Meeting.
First a screenshot of motions moved, and carried:
Motion 1 by Councillor Pasternak was innocuous enough, simply shifting the report back date from January 2021 to Q2 2021.
But Motion 2 was Ainslie's all out assault.
I will dissect this drivel in short order.
First a screenshot of motions moved, and carried:
Motion 1 by Councillor Pasternak was innocuous enough, simply shifting the report back date from January 2021 to Q2 2021.
But Motion 2 was Ainslie's all out assault.
I will dissect this drivel in short order.
Northern Light
Superstar
So lets dissect this nonsensical motion from above:
Section 8 is integral to the idea of the Stewardship Manual.
The point of the Manual is to get City staff to allow volunteers to litter pick, to remove small non-native, invasive plants without using pesticides, and to plant trees/shrubs/wildflowers etc.
A necessary part of that is describing what activities are acceptable and in what way they could be carried out.
**
There is no need as part of this manual to define native plant. First off, there's already a definition. Second, any plants put in would be from the City's own approved list of native plants.
That list may well evolve over time with climate change; but not tomorrow, or next week; and the City and TRCA will amend those lists as they see fit, just like now.
**
There is no plant called 'dog weed'; there is a plant called 'Dog Strangling Vine'; how are the unfortunate choices made by a small number of residents on their own property related to this manual? (hint, they're not)
The whole point of the Manual to allow people to passively steward areas they wish to; there is nothing here to do with the City distributing volunteers...............what sort of bizarre notion is that?
****
The whole point of this exercise is to eliminate direct oversight of volunteers by the City.........not create more managers
****
The Manual was brought forward to a City committee for comment by a City department in regards to volunteers in City owned and/or managed parks. Where does the TRCA come into this?
No one is proposing stewardship on private properties.
No one fence hops to remove a weed or plant a tree.........
The idea of giving any kind of veto on Stewardship to adjacent homeowners is a nightmare; even formal notification of work would mean nothing could be done without money and time being expended to notify multiple property owners.
The program should not require new City dollars; with the possible exception of supplying some plants to designated groups.
While the City could undertake direct training of lead-volunteers/stewards, the point was to lay out qualifications, most of which could be independently obtained.
E.....just wow............the point here is not to 'find' volunteers, its to get out of the way of the those who already are volunteering or wish to do so.
Most of the above is just idiotic, just like the rest of this motion.................
I'll touch on C - Really; the point of a lead volunteer who would coordinate work in an area is to ensure someone knows what plants are of value in a space. That said, the odds on someone damaging most plants, by walking through once, to pick up litter is slim and none.
D Fencing employed for the purpose of stewardship might be vetoed because someone doesn't like the look?
E. OMG....the turnover of volunteers is 'eminent' is it?
Section 8 is integral to the idea of the Stewardship Manual.
The point of the Manual is to get City staff to allow volunteers to litter pick, to remove small non-native, invasive plants without using pesticides, and to plant trees/shrubs/wildflowers etc.
A necessary part of that is describing what activities are acceptable and in what way they could be carried out.
**
There is no need as part of this manual to define native plant. First off, there's already a definition. Second, any plants put in would be from the City's own approved list of native plants.
That list may well evolve over time with climate change; but not tomorrow, or next week; and the City and TRCA will amend those lists as they see fit, just like now.
**
There is no plant called 'dog weed'; there is a plant called 'Dog Strangling Vine'; how are the unfortunate choices made by a small number of residents on their own property related to this manual? (hint, they're not)
The whole point of the Manual to allow people to passively steward areas they wish to; there is nothing here to do with the City distributing volunteers...............what sort of bizarre notion is that?
****
The whole point of this exercise is to eliminate direct oversight of volunteers by the City.........not create more managers
****
The Manual was brought forward to a City committee for comment by a City department in regards to volunteers in City owned and/or managed parks. Where does the TRCA come into this?
No one is proposing stewardship on private properties.
No one fence hops to remove a weed or plant a tree.........
The idea of giving any kind of veto on Stewardship to adjacent homeowners is a nightmare; even formal notification of work would mean nothing could be done without money and time being expended to notify multiple property owners.
The program should not require new City dollars; with the possible exception of supplying some plants to designated groups.
While the City could undertake direct training of lead-volunteers/stewards, the point was to lay out qualifications, most of which could be independently obtained.
E.....just wow............the point here is not to 'find' volunteers, its to get out of the way of the those who already are volunteering or wish to do so.
Most of the above is just idiotic, just like the rest of this motion.................
I'll touch on C - Really; the point of a lead volunteer who would coordinate work in an area is to ensure someone knows what plants are of value in a space. That said, the odds on someone damaging most plants, by walking through once, to pick up litter is slim and none.
D Fencing employed for the purpose of stewardship might be vetoed because someone doesn't like the look?
E. OMG....the turnover of volunteers is 'eminent' is it?
Last edited:
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
I suppose nobody wakes up one morning to "tackle the Stewardship Manual" ... is there any motive or background context to why this is suddenly an issue requiring amendment motions?
Northern Light
Superstar
The manual was an initiative of several volunteer groups who are deeply frustrated by the City making it ever more difficult to donate one's time and expertise.
When stewardship began under the Task Force to Bring Back the Don; that group was entirely volunteer and supported by 2 City staffers who helped and who wrangled money.
****
As the years have passed, the City has gone from letting people donate their time with no supervision or very little to nominally requiring that no one can do anything without City staff on site.
The result is far fewer events, money left on the table; and less being accomplished.
The City can't seem to hold an event without 2 staff present, minimum, which itself a problem, and rather wasteful.
The City when attending an event has to calendar it, register people for it, publicize it, spend 20 minutes telling people how to carry a shovel..............and of course, this is completely impractical if you have say, 2 people in an area who are happy to come out once a week for a month in spring and the fall to tend their local ravine.
The two City staff would invariably stand watching to ensure the two volunteers do everything right.
*****
In light of the above, volunteers got a motion through Council.....don't hold me to this, but I think it was last year; that in bureaucratic speak asked Parks to play more nicely with 'Friends of" groups and volunteers.
It occurred to some folks that Parks would find a way to make this more complicated than necessary and less useful than it ought to be if left to their own devices.
So several people pooled their time and expertise to write this manual in order to set the terms of discussion on a more permissive plan that would allow volunteers to donate time and expertise with less hassle and oversight.
The object was to set out what tasks could be done and how; and to define lead steward/volunteer qualifications that would entitle someone to work independently of the City within a defined area.
Here's the training section of the manual; note that the training did not require City resources:
allengeorge
Senior Member
Man - this is what I absolutely hate about Toronto: the ability to over-rule absolutely everything. Has no one there ever heard of the principle of starting with the lightest-weight process first, and going from there? The city would probably be a more dynamic place - that's for sure.
The volunteers should probably not bother working with the city.
The volunteers should probably not bother working with the city.
Undead
Senior Member
And this is the kind of crap people are referring to when they rail against government waste.
smably
Senior Member
Great news about the magnificent 250-year-old oak tree at 76 Coral Gable Drive:
Fundraising didn't quite reach its target, but the city has agreed to step in and cover the remaining gap so the property can be purchased and turned into a park.
www.toronto.ca
Fundraising didn't quite reach its target, but the city has agreed to step in and cover the remaining gap so the property can be purchased and turned into a park.
Donate to the Historic Red Oak
On November 26, 2020, Toronto City Council joined over 1,300 donors in committing to the preservation and celebration of this mighty oak. Council adopted Option B of MM26.9 authorizing the purchase of the property for the creation of a parkette. Donors still have the opportunity to get behind...
www.toronto.ca
vic
Senior Member
I like this front yard tree at Royal York and Ashley Park Rd. I always look at it when I go by, but haven't stopped to take my own picture yet.
Just checked on Google Streetview today and noticed that its lean has become more pronounced over the last 13 years, and that the "kick stands" are a relatively recent addition.
Northern Light
Superstar
I like this front yard tree at Royal York and Ashley Park Rd. I always look at it when I go by, but haven't stopped to take my own picture yet.
Just checked on Google Streetview today and noticed that its lean has become more pronounced over the last 13 years, and that the "kick stands" are a relatively recent addition.
Your tree as viewed from Ashley Park Road:
From Streetview
You can see the injury to the tree where it lost a limb, its fairly recent as it isn't healed over (too light in colour to be older). There's where your kickstands come from, they are the fallen limb cut into pieces.
*****
Another shot, this time from just a smidge further north on Royal York:
from Streetview
Of interest here, note the new growth low on the tree; that resprouting tends to occur either after an injury or when the tree is in poor health further up and its preparing to lose a limb by growing new ones.
***
Obviously, I'm only looking at photos online, but at first blush I don't see any indications of broad health issues.
Though that form is well and truly bizarre.
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
Willows - just about impossible to beat them to death. Years ago my father-in-law cut down a willow and threw the bits over the fence into the ravine. They are now a grove.
Northern Light
Superstar
I know some of you take an interest in Tree ID.
Something that can be a challenge, especially in the winter season.
So here's a chance to learn.............the City is doing a Youtube live stream on Winter Tree ID this coming Tuesday, December 8th at 11am.
Edit to update, the video here was recorded and is now able to be streamed at your leisure.
Its just over 40M long.
Something that can be a challenge, especially in the winter season.
So here's a chance to learn.............the City is doing a Youtube live stream on Winter Tree ID this coming Tuesday, December 8th at 11am.
Edit to update, the video here was recorded and is now able to be streamed at your leisure.
Its just over 40M long.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
An article in NOW w/Jason Ramsey Brown; a member of the Toronto Field Naturalists and author of a book on Toronto's ravines: