> If you can't afford to keep your trees safe then you can't afford the trees and/or the property.
1. Handling it like that might mean more cut down trees, which is probably not something the town/city has an interest in. (Maybe they should send professionals to check out all the trees?)
2. Properties can change hands much quicker than cut down trees can be regrown.
If the tree is dead or rotting then it is better to cut it down. If you're unsure of the status of a tree, you should be cautious around it until it has been tested. Basically don't climb it or put a swing on it.
I am not sure what the point of point 2 is, when you have point 1. You don't really have to cut down all the untested trees on your property, but if you're not doing testing/maintenance on the trees for ANY reason(ignorance, cost), don't be surprised when one kills someone and you're held liable for it. You should consider this before buying a property with trees. It's similar to owning a dog. If you own a dog, and it runs out and bites someone, you will likely be held liable, and the dog will likely be put down. If the dog tests positive for rabies before even biting anyone, it will be put down, similar to a dead tree being cut down.
1. Handling it like that might mean more cut down trees, which is probably not something the town/city has an interest in. (Maybe they should send professionals to check out all the trees?)
2. Properties can change hands much quicker than cut down trees can be regrown.