Submitted by Dave Meadows

Ideally, for an urban forest to work properly it must be cohesive in nature. It includes both native and non-native species crossing public and private property lines yet interconnected and functioning as an ecosystem. This ecosystem is valued and cared for through community stewardship to maintain its health and vitality. It is important to realize that although urban forests consist of individual trees along streets and backyards, it also includes stands of remnant forests interspersed among the surrounding lands. Vegetation in residential and commercial landscapes also contributes to the urban forest.

Currently, the District of Invermere has thousands of trees that provide tremendous benefit and have a high value that requires a cohesive plan for managing these assets. Balancing these benefits with a  property owner’s right to develop and manage their property is also an ongoing challenge.

Last summer, I received a request from an Edmonton-based property management firm on behalf of a non-resident landowner. Of the 14 or so relatively treeless lots available, the property owner selected a specific lot that included a particularly large, mature tree. The diameter at breast height measured four feet (48 inches). If one took a tape measure completely around the tree, the circumference was over 12 feet. It was a magnificent remnant forest specimen of interior Douglas Fir!

I was puzzled as to why someone would select a lot with the largest tree, perhaps the largest in the area, then have the tree removed? The lack of understanding of how truly intertwined people and trees are within the urban forest is troublesome. When considering the many documented benefits of trees, whether we are talking about the numerous species of birds, animals, and insects that inhabit trees, or storm water capture, shade, clean air and financial benefits, people are mostly short-sighted about how meaningful their relationship with trees really is. Despite their essential role in helping communities adapt to climate change and urbanization, urban and remnant forests may themselves be vulnerable to people’s lack of obligation to preserve trees along with keeping in balance with Fire  Smart practices.

Take water conservation, for example; some may argue there was no real incentive to conserve water even though local water governing agencies were advocating cautious advice and warnings that the resource is limited. It wasn’t until flat-rate billing changed to water metering that most people began conserving use. Perhaps, providing incentives such as tax relief on properties where people retain and maintain large trees would attract more attention and bring about a change for tree preservation?