History
5/17/06 - The Jackson
American Legion Post was built and moved into, in 1929. In a
photo of work completing the building, two Engleman spruce trees are
seen in the position of the spruce trees on the premises today, 2006,
at about 4 ft. tall. This implies that the trees were already
about two years old when planted. New building for the Legion and
Jackson, two new trees planted by the people that built the Post, for
the future.
Now comes about 72 years later, when the Post membership determines that the building should be restored to earlier and better conditions. Much money is raised within the community to assist in this effort and much work is accomplished. However, in 2005, the issue is raised that due to a lean in one of the trees toward the Post building, that the trees, both, including the one that is not leaning, should be destroyed. (I used to be on the Building Restoration committee, but resigned when the Post members chose to sell "Support Our Troops" car magnets, but not use the money to do anything to support the troops, but rather use it to restore the Post building." However, I did not resign my Post membership.) I challenged this & while I am the Post Historian, I am also somewhat the Post pariah for my efforts. ( It should also be noted that this webpage is on my website, and not on the Post's website of which I am the site's webmaster.) I challenged this thinking to remove the trees, as much a part of the Post's history as the building itself, while others seemed determined to see the trees be removed. It is spring of 2006 and due to a Post meeting tonight (May), the removal is imminent and my frustration is considerable. Please read below and what appears to be extraordinarily stupid logic to support their destruction.
Now comes about 72 years later, when the Post membership determines that the building should be restored to earlier and better conditions. Much money is raised within the community to assist in this effort and much work is accomplished. However, in 2005, the issue is raised that due to a lean in one of the trees toward the Post building, that the trees, both, including the one that is not leaning, should be destroyed. (I used to be on the Building Restoration committee, but resigned when the Post members chose to sell "Support Our Troops" car magnets, but not use the money to do anything to support the troops, but rather use it to restore the Post building." However, I did not resign my Post membership.) I challenged this & while I am the Post Historian, I am also somewhat the Post pariah for my efforts. ( It should also be noted that this webpage is on my website, and not on the Post's website of which I am the site's webmaster.) I challenged this thinking to remove the trees, as much a part of the Post's history as the building itself, while others seemed determined to see the trees be removed. It is spring of 2006 and due to a Post meeting tonight (May), the removal is imminent and my frustration is considerable. Please read below and what appears to be extraordinarily stupid logic to support their destruction.
Logic?
The first bit of logic that they should be removed, is that the tree on
the north side of the entrance sidewalk, is leaning, and therefore a
threat to the building being restored. It is leaning, but if that
were the basis of a threat, why are they cutting down BOTH trees
instead of just the tree that is leaning. A state certified
arborist has said that a lean of 15 degrees, might constitute concern,
but his determination is that the north tree (NT) is only leaning 10
degrees at most. AND, at a certain height, the tree has righted
itself and is growing straight up again. (Check back, I'll post
pictures shortly. This page is a hurried result of my aggravation
and lack of sleep @ 2am after last night's meeting.)
Everyone agrees that both trees are perfectly healthy, which is to say there are no diseases possessing it, no rot, no insects, etc., to threaten the tree's stability. A tree of this type can live to be 300 yrs. old, these are about 78. They have a somewhat shallow root system and have buckled the Post's concrete sidewalk & are a little difficult to mow the yard over, but that's all the difficulty they present.
One argument was the worry that something like a storm with a micro burst, would take down the tree(s), or that a heavy wind would do the same. Winds in Jackson are primarily out of the SW which would blow the tree toward the building. However, there are many trees as large or larger to the SW that would also diminish the winds blowing in and the concept of a micro burst is essentially, laughable as genuine intelligent logic. How many other local buildings worry about such things with all the spruce trees in their yards?
Others worried about the insurance on our building. Ralph Gill called our insurer to query the issue of payoff if the tree did fall and was told that if we knew it was a hazard & it fell, we would not be covered. Huh? I advised at tonight's meeting that the arborist advised it wasn't a threat. But, the Bldg. cmte. chair said he has 3 reports that it is - from a Post member who used to work for the Forest Service and I believe, 2 local landscapers. And, now that the insurance company is involved, the policy is in some dispute. However, if our trees are a threat, then all spruce trees in Jackson, or the world, are a threat and anyone with a tree on their property should know better and the insurance companies don't have to pay if a micro burst takes one down on their building/house/outhouse/restaurant/hotel/car/etc. ad nauseam. This is a most specious argument which the members of the Post thought was valid. It could or should be easily challenged if a claim was refused. To further confirm my argument, I spoke with the insurer today (5/17/06) myself, and she (Pam Davidson, although Ralph talked to Nancy Stichert) ) confirmed my assumption that the insurance company would pay if a tree fell on the building & we didn't know it was a hazard, which again these trees are not. This "threat" was used to sway members to vote to remove the trees when in fact, it wasn't a valid argument at all. Somehow, Larry North doesn't comprehend that.
Tonight, the Post membership was asked, for the second time, to vote to remove the trees, even though the decision is the responsibility of the Building Restoration Cmte., comprised of former Post commanders Larry North and Bob Lalonde. The vote was 9 - 5 in favor of removing them, on the basis of imminent threat, the insurance canard, and how the stress of placing a new sidewalk would cause either to get sick, die, and fall on the building. AGAIN, they voted to remove both trees and not just the one that is leaning slightly.
I had asked this state arborist to assess the potential & had reported this to the membership, and I expect to have his formal report in writing within the next few days. But, he told me & I advised the membership that he concluded they were 1) No threat, 2) not diseased, 3) only more than a 15 deg. lead might constitute a hazard, 4) that the tree is growing straight again, 5) that is was about 90 ft. tall & would probably max out at about 100 ft., and personally referred to the insurance issue as a non issue. The tree(s) could have fallen over 40 yrs. ago, or not fall for another 225 yrs. I have to wonder where the intelligent thought process eluded these people.
Some of these same people had thought some meetings ago, that once this was done, that they'd plant new spruce trees in the location of the old ones! I, questioned this dumbness as well, stating that the Post would have to worry about removing those 300 yr. trees in 75, lest the building be in danger again by 2040 or for that matter, ANYTIME. They finally acquiesced on that one stating that stronger trees with better root systems could be planted in other locations instead.
The Building Restoration effort will also include other landscaping of bushes/trees on the grounds, and the installation of a sprinkler system. Prior watering by Bob Lalonde, was a labor of love on his part & kept our grounds green during the summer, and while rot due to the watering crept into the building's logs requiring extensive work during restoration, it did not at all cause any rot in the 2 doomed spruce trees.
I should also add that at tonight's meeting, I advised that the only real threat seen by the arborist who assessed our situation, was that of two large limbs of a cottonwood tree on the north side of our property, that should be cut back to the trunk. There was no follow-up discussion of this threat at all, nor plans to address it by landscapers during their work. So much for threat assessment of consequence. When I asked Larry North about his penchant to remove the trees, he in all fairness, said he didn't "want" to remove them. If not, why the concern about the specious insurance argument, or the persistent pursuit of removing BOTH trees, instead of just one? There seems to be a considerably misplace sense of history in this process, when you restore a building made of dead wood, and wish to destroy a historical pair of 90 ft. tall living trees.
The Post member who worked for the Forest Service, cored the trees and said they are no more than 65 years old if I remember him correctly. That means that the original trees were dug up, and replanted at the start of WWII. I don't suppose that time of planting is any more historically significant than that of the original members from WWI if done in 1929. However, where this comes from I don't know. The state arborist advised me that the coring should be done at a height of about 4.5 ft. from the ground, and that the coring done was done on the south tree (ST) at 3 ft. 2 in. and the one on the NT at 2 ft. 4 in., which can throw off the dating analysis even if done properly otherwise. There has been no historical evidence presented to prove they were replanted anyway, yet there is evidence of the trees (saplings?) in front of the building in 1929, at about 4 ft. in height. Repeatedly, these are arguments the membership has bought into that just don't hold any water at all. (But, that's what trees do.)
Well, I appreciate your reading this far into the rantings of one annoying Legion member, apparent tree hugger (and proud to call myself one), and one who has not endeared himself to the rest of the membership. I've done a lot of work for this Legion post and presume it's known to those same members. But, I've stood up when some pretty revolting things have been said at meetings about being an American, being patriotic, comments about presidents not of someone's party preference, when members slandered other members unnecessarily, etc. I was gaveled down tonight (although I forced further discussion as Robert's Rules weren't being followed very closely) and, after all this time, realizing how inappropriate it would be to put these thoughts on the Legion's website, I've realized I can put them here, cause it's my website & they're the result of my frustrations with such unintelligent mind bending. Apparently the membership is selective about it's sense of history. I guess our recently erected monument on our grounds to our membership and our Post, can't include something else the founding membership thought of import. If these trees were a real threat, which they've been shown NOT TO BE, I'd reluctantly agree to their removal as well. It's just, well.....
South
tree
Everyone agrees that both trees are perfectly healthy, which is to say there are no diseases possessing it, no rot, no insects, etc., to threaten the tree's stability. A tree of this type can live to be 300 yrs. old, these are about 78. They have a somewhat shallow root system and have buckled the Post's concrete sidewalk & are a little difficult to mow the yard over, but that's all the difficulty they present.
One argument was the worry that something like a storm with a micro burst, would take down the tree(s), or that a heavy wind would do the same. Winds in Jackson are primarily out of the SW which would blow the tree toward the building. However, there are many trees as large or larger to the SW that would also diminish the winds blowing in and the concept of a micro burst is essentially, laughable as genuine intelligent logic. How many other local buildings worry about such things with all the spruce trees in their yards?
Others worried about the insurance on our building. Ralph Gill called our insurer to query the issue of payoff if the tree did fall and was told that if we knew it was a hazard & it fell, we would not be covered. Huh? I advised at tonight's meeting that the arborist advised it wasn't a threat. But, the Bldg. cmte. chair said he has 3 reports that it is - from a Post member who used to work for the Forest Service and I believe, 2 local landscapers. And, now that the insurance company is involved, the policy is in some dispute. However, if our trees are a threat, then all spruce trees in Jackson, or the world, are a threat and anyone with a tree on their property should know better and the insurance companies don't have to pay if a micro burst takes one down on their building/house/outhouse/restaurant/hotel/car/etc. ad nauseam. This is a most specious argument which the members of the Post thought was valid. It could or should be easily challenged if a claim was refused. To further confirm my argument, I spoke with the insurer today (5/17/06) myself, and she (Pam Davidson, although Ralph talked to Nancy Stichert) ) confirmed my assumption that the insurance company would pay if a tree fell on the building & we didn't know it was a hazard, which again these trees are not. This "threat" was used to sway members to vote to remove the trees when in fact, it wasn't a valid argument at all. Somehow, Larry North doesn't comprehend that.
Tonight, the Post membership was asked, for the second time, to vote to remove the trees, even though the decision is the responsibility of the Building Restoration Cmte., comprised of former Post commanders Larry North and Bob Lalonde. The vote was 9 - 5 in favor of removing them, on the basis of imminent threat, the insurance canard, and how the stress of placing a new sidewalk would cause either to get sick, die, and fall on the building. AGAIN, they voted to remove both trees and not just the one that is leaning slightly.
I had asked this state arborist to assess the potential & had reported this to the membership, and I expect to have his formal report in writing within the next few days. But, he told me & I advised the membership that he concluded they were 1) No threat, 2) not diseased, 3) only more than a 15 deg. lead might constitute a hazard, 4) that the tree is growing straight again, 5) that is was about 90 ft. tall & would probably max out at about 100 ft., and personally referred to the insurance issue as a non issue. The tree(s) could have fallen over 40 yrs. ago, or not fall for another 225 yrs. I have to wonder where the intelligent thought process eluded these people.
Some of these same people had thought some meetings ago, that once this was done, that they'd plant new spruce trees in the location of the old ones! I, questioned this dumbness as well, stating that the Post would have to worry about removing those 300 yr. trees in 75, lest the building be in danger again by 2040 or for that matter, ANYTIME. They finally acquiesced on that one stating that stronger trees with better root systems could be planted in other locations instead.
The Building Restoration effort will also include other landscaping of bushes/trees on the grounds, and the installation of a sprinkler system. Prior watering by Bob Lalonde, was a labor of love on his part & kept our grounds green during the summer, and while rot due to the watering crept into the building's logs requiring extensive work during restoration, it did not at all cause any rot in the 2 doomed spruce trees.
I should also add that at tonight's meeting, I advised that the only real threat seen by the arborist who assessed our situation, was that of two large limbs of a cottonwood tree on the north side of our property, that should be cut back to the trunk. There was no follow-up discussion of this threat at all, nor plans to address it by landscapers during their work. So much for threat assessment of consequence. When I asked Larry North about his penchant to remove the trees, he in all fairness, said he didn't "want" to remove them. If not, why the concern about the specious insurance argument, or the persistent pursuit of removing BOTH trees, instead of just one? There seems to be a considerably misplace sense of history in this process, when you restore a building made of dead wood, and wish to destroy a historical pair of 90 ft. tall living trees.
The Post member who worked for the Forest Service, cored the trees and said they are no more than 65 years old if I remember him correctly. That means that the original trees were dug up, and replanted at the start of WWII. I don't suppose that time of planting is any more historically significant than that of the original members from WWI if done in 1929. However, where this comes from I don't know. The state arborist advised me that the coring should be done at a height of about 4.5 ft. from the ground, and that the coring done was done on the south tree (ST) at 3 ft. 2 in. and the one on the NT at 2 ft. 4 in., which can throw off the dating analysis even if done properly otherwise. There has been no historical evidence presented to prove they were replanted anyway, yet there is evidence of the trees (saplings?) in front of the building in 1929, at about 4 ft. in height. Repeatedly, these are arguments the membership has bought into that just don't hold any water at all. (But, that's what trees do.)
Well, I appreciate your reading this far into the rantings of one annoying Legion member, apparent tree hugger (and proud to call myself one), and one who has not endeared himself to the rest of the membership. I've done a lot of work for this Legion post and presume it's known to those same members. But, I've stood up when some pretty revolting things have been said at meetings about being an American, being patriotic, comments about presidents not of someone's party preference, when members slandered other members unnecessarily, etc. I was gaveled down tonight (although I forced further discussion as Robert's Rules weren't being followed very closely) and, after all this time, realizing how inappropriate it would be to put these thoughts on the Legion's website, I've realized I can put them here, cause it's my website & they're the result of my frustrations with such unintelligent mind bending. Apparently the membership is selective about it's sense of history. I guess our recently erected monument on our grounds to our membership and our Post, can't include something else the founding membership thought of import. If these trees were a real threat, which they've been shown NOT TO BE, I'd reluctantly agree to their removal as well. It's just, well.....
BULLSHIT.
(Sorry about using a vulgar military term here.)
(Sorry about using a vulgar military term here.)
So what you
say? There's little time left. Those in charge want the job
done. While it's essentially asinine, I can understand the desire
to be done with my "bickering" over this, something I rather see as
myself being the only defender of these trees. While a few others
voted to keep them, no one else spoke a word in their behalf. The
vote wasn't binding, but was meant to placate the intent of the 2
member building cmte. when they vote for what is, a foregone conclusion
to have the trees destroyed, probably within the next month or two if
not sooner. (A landscaper or whomever, will start cutting them
from the top down & then remove the roots. We've talked about
giving cut sections to a bowl carver so we'll have a souvenir of their
existence.)
I ask anyone to call anyone, to influence anyone. Say NO MORE CONTRIBUTIONS to the Building's Restoration, if the trees are not kept. Do you know anyone influential in governmental (local/state in particular) circles? Call them. Persons of import, with influence themselves, with knowledge of what kind of dangerous threat such a spruce tree engenders? Community leaders who believe that such things should be saved or protected? Two simple trees in downtown Jackson, Wyoming that must die to senselessly protect an inanimate building. Save the building, kill the trees. Screw history. Sorry on this if you think I'm an asshole, but I, don't care. I'm not sure why I care so much about these trees, except to wonder about the amazingly inane logic of killing them, but I can't budge those in charge or get anyone else to, so far. If you can help, thank you. Maybe if I gave them names like Larry, or Bob, or something personal like that. I've got lots of other silly thoughts like that too, but this really isn't silly, is it?
My name's Walt Farmer, thanks for reading...wf
I ask anyone to call anyone, to influence anyone. Say NO MORE CONTRIBUTIONS to the Building's Restoration, if the trees are not kept. Do you know anyone influential in governmental (local/state in particular) circles? Call them. Persons of import, with influence themselves, with knowledge of what kind of dangerous threat such a spruce tree engenders? Community leaders who believe that such things should be saved or protected? Two simple trees in downtown Jackson, Wyoming that must die to senselessly protect an inanimate building. Save the building, kill the trees. Screw history. Sorry on this if you think I'm an asshole, but I, don't care. I'm not sure why I care so much about these trees, except to wonder about the amazingly inane logic of killing them, but I can't budge those in charge or get anyone else to, so far. If you can help, thank you. Maybe if I gave them names like Larry, or Bob, or something personal like that. I've got lots of other silly thoughts like that too, but this really isn't silly, is it?
My name's Walt Farmer, thanks for reading...wf
South
tree