In article ,
Leon wrote:

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
ervers.com...


In all seriousness, probably because they WEREN'T _TOLD_ it was a
"5-year-old
ash" that they were to remove

You are making an assumption here.

Of course I am. I even *said*so*. That's what the word "probably" means,
when used in the context of supposed causative events.

It was specifically stated that the they
mistook it as a 5 year old Ash.

FALSE TO FACT. It was _not_ so stated.

The lead paragraph of the story constitutes an 'editorial comment' by the
author of the story. It is 'descriptive' of the events that occurred, it
is _not_ a 'statement of fact' regarding HOW THINGS HAPPENED.

Tree A was, effectively, "mistaken" for tree B, yes. Although tree B was
no longer present at the time of the mistake.

Absent seeing the *ACTUAL*INSTRUCTIONS* given to the workers, one cannot
know what information they had to identify the tree they were supposed to
remove.

You have to read the story a little more critically.

The _facts_ one can glean from the reportage:
1) the 'famous' 500-year old oak tree existed
2) an "five year old ash" tree growing nearby was getting in the way
3) a decision was made by the council to have the 'offending' tree removed
4) a crew was dispatched to do just that. And they did so.
5) a second crew was dispatched, the next day -- presumably the result of
a scheduling error -- and removed the *ONLY*TREE* to be found.
6) This second tree was *not* supposed to be removed.
7) The oak, after being felled, was cut into firewood-size pieces.
END OF FACTS

_What_ the instructions to the crews were, is *not* specified. HOW they
were to identify the tree to be removed is *NOT* specified.

Tree removal crews -- if this _was_ a crew 'dedicated' to that purpose, and
if it was just a 'general maintenance' crew, the lack of 'relevant' knowledge
is even more likely -- are *NOT* trained in identifying the age, or the species
of a tree. They're told "thus-and-such tree is in the way, remove it".
Usually all they have is a location, and *MAYBE* a 'mark' that _somebody_else_
put there to identify the particular tree as 'the one to be removed', *IF*
there is ambiguity (i.e. if there is more than one tree there. You look
for the mark if there is any question about "which tree" is to be removed.
when there is _only_one_ tree at the specified location,

In this case, when the 2nd crew showed up, there was _only_one_tree_, there
was little reason for them to suspect that there 'had been' more than one
tree at the location, or that they should have been looking for a 'marked'
tree among multiple trees.


I have, myself, seen a *LOT* (easily 500+) of similar work-orders -- admittedly
*not* from this town in Germany. Of the ones I _have_ seen, none of them
specified the age, nor species of the tree to be removed. The orders to
the removal crew read: "Go to _such-and-such location_, remove the _N_ marked
tree(s)."

Note: You'd think anybody with half-a-brain would be able to recognize a dying
Elm tree, but they still spray-painted a 2-foot plus 'mark' on the tree
to identify it to the crews. And, on occasion, even -that- was insufficient.
In one case, a dying (but *unmarked*) ironwood was removed, while the (early
stages, *marked) diseased elm was left standing.