Thread: Tree burls illegally removed

Saw this on Facebook, people suck. There was a fair bit of debate on there regarding whether this would damage the tree or not, can anyone clarify for me? Damaging or not it's still a rubbish move but I'm curious.

Pretty keen of them to take so many. Surely a hobbyist could subtlety take a couple from well off a track and no one ever notice. Definitely not condoning it.

Surely these must be for resale, either natural or as a finished product.

If caught the courts need to make a strong example of this type of behaviour.

Originally Posted by bueller

There was a fair bit of debate on there regarding whether this would damage the tree or not, can anyone clarify for me?

It was my impression that removing a burl was not too much of a problem for a tree but I think the operative word here is a single burl.
It basically opens the tree to infection from other sources like lyctus borer. It would be a little like if I was to remove some of the skin off your arm. You'd probably cope with that, grow new skin etc. If i took the skin off both arms, some from your thigh on one leg and your calf on the other leg, a bit off your chest and some from your back it would be much more difficult to cope with.

Whatever the case, because this is state forest the trees belong to all of us and should not be profited from by one person alone.

Dewlap are quite open to the collection of small forest products. I've done this myself. A small licence fee applies to pay for keeping track of what is being taken where it is taken from and how it is used and they make sure you have the right gear and safety procedures etc. Very simple. Probably the most important aspect of a small forest produce licence is to assist you to avoid special protection areas (SPZ's) where protected plants, animals are at risk, then there are forest operations such as timber harvesting, burn offs, earth works and the like.