Thread: 'Pollarding'

I'll set the scene,

At work my company have been working on a huge site for the new Royal Bank of Scotlands International Headquaters at Gogarburn

Before i arrived they carried out the site clearance, mulching etc....and we are now onto the tree surgery work to coincide with the landscaping.

The place is slowly driving me mad, we keep getting told to prune trees to X height over an access road so that the excavators can get in, 2 weeks later we have to go back and reprune and tell them we told you so.

we are currently tending to one of their woodland blocks and "Pollarding" the trees to X height. my question is why does the tree surveyor call them pollards when what he really means is 'create vertical deadwood habitat' cos all we are really doing is substantially topping (reducing from 25m to about 5m!!!!!) the trees and killing them, oh and we are also to 'pollard' dead trees....

as far as im aware and this is what ive always been taught that pollarding is a management technique used from an early age, where the tree sustains little damage and therefor little rot, not topping to create deadwood habitat

why cant he just say that

rant over

jamie

Originally posted by jamie
we keep getting told to prune trees to X height over an access road so that the excavators can get in, 2 weeks later we have to go back and reprune and tell them we told you so.

Why aren't they told to find a new way for the excavators to get in? Sounds like it's a convenience for them, not a necessity.
ps Asplundh is a utility contractor that gets a bad rap because line clearance work is by its nature tree-unfriendly. The crew in my area are well-trained and do as good a job as they can.

the excavators are too work along the access roads to dig pipe and cable trenches, the head honcho told us that the excavators would be told to be 'careful', how many digger operators are careful of a few branches when they have a job to do in X amount of time and have a 45ton digga to do it........

jamie

You're right, Jamie. Pollarding is not the same as topping. Pollarding is an accepted practice, but it must be started when the trees are young and done regularly throughout the life of the tree. All cuts are typically less than 1 inch diameter wood. Just because they call it pollarding doesn't make it OK. You're in a tough spot, for sure. Better to just bite the bullet and do your job as told. I'm a firm believer in letting management determine policy.

I like pollard when done properly. Several nice ones in Paris, Champs Elleysees (sp?), UC Berkely has nice ones too. My main beef with them is that they are a maintenance nightmare. Most attemps I have seen, they are not properly maintained so follow up cuts are greater than 1 inch.

It is all to often used to justify topping.

All too often I have seen crown reductions where limbs are reduced to laterals that are 1/10th the diameter of the main lead. Glorified topping.........

.02

One way of looking at it is they are setting it up for you to come back and remove the dead 6m shrubs in a few years.

The easy answer is that they don't care, and the sales people at your company don't want to or cannot educate the engineers. To some people treeworkers are not professionals, they are labor only a step or two above garbage picker.

"Oh you cut trees!"

While the 1 inch 1 year rule of thumb is not concrete, it is true that pollarding still needs to hold to the rules of nodal pruning. Even if it is 2 inch cuts on a 3 year cycle. Then "Young" is a very relative term; with some trees, to get the desired scaffold you need to wait til they are 20-30 years old.

Originally posted by TREETX
.

All too often I have seen crown reductions where limbs are reduced to laterals that are 1/10th the diameter of the main lead. Glorified topping.........

.02

...or not, depending on the species site and most of all condition. Heading cuts to nodes with NO laterals can be better than to 1:3 laterals. It can be proper pruning; read ANSI, and Shigo's ANTB before condemning crown reduction.

Leaving "Stubs" is often better for the tree than deep cuts to big laterals. How the tree looks right after pruning means nothing; how it responds in the future means everything.

Originally posted by John Paul Sanborn
To some people treeworkers are not professionals, they are labor only a step or two above garbage picker.

"Oh you cut trees!"

Friggin headache of my life. I get tired of that attitude. -- People who think I climb trees because I have to, not because I want to.

Meeting with an old friend this weekend and his friends from Houston. They are all MBA's or NASA engineers (seriously). When they ask what I do for a living, they either respect it or get a puzzled look on their face as if I was choosing to be a garbage collector. Inevitably, they all drink too much and start whining about their desk jobs. If I can tell they are the kind of people who don't rspect what I do, I just tell them I am a rodeo clown or a test smeller for Dr. Scholl's Odor eaters...

They customer who top and then say, "see I told you so..." Those are the same kind that view you as the equivalent of a garbage collector.......

I love it when they start whining about their jobs. I'll respond "And I get paid to do something I love"

Originally posted by Treeman14
Better to just bite the bullet and do your job as told. I'm a firm believer in letting management determine policy.

This sounds like the worst view to have on just about any issue. Jamie, it seems you understand that something is wrong here. If you don't do something, things will stay wrong.

I've worked at a few smaller businesses and right away I told them I wouldn't top trees. Some don't get it. One day boss says, "Here's the address, the lady will be home and she'll show you what she wants done." We pull up later with the chip truck, she shows me the tree (nice Norway maple- maybe 60' tall) I get my rope set while she's in the house. I'm at the top of the tree, beginning the deadwood when she comes out the back door and starts instructing me. I quickly realize she just wants the tree topped to just below half it's height. ("See that branch over there...cut off all the branches to that height.")

I came right down from the tree, asked her if this was what the boss had agreed on, then told here there was a problem. I went back to the shop.

If people are always biting the bullet and letting management deal with "policies" black people would still be called ###### and women wouldn't be able to vote.

Everyone has to stand up for something.

love
nick

Originally posted by Treeman14
Better to just bite the bullet and do your job as told. I'm a firm believer in letting management determine policy.

Better to spit the bullet out and into management's eye if they refuse to consider change in policy. Best yet to give them everything they need to make the change; show them there's profit in doing it the right way.

Originally posted by NickfromWI

If people are always biting the bullet and letting management deal with "policies" black people would still be called ######s and women wouldn't be able to vote.

Everyone has to stand up for something.

Thanks Nick, good to hear something intelligent for a change.....other than bickering on this site. People TRY to be brutally honest - you are. Someone has to say it like it is.



Take care Lovey

Having said that, I would top the f'ers if that is what my boss pays me to do. Let the Royal Bank buy new ones. I don't know where they grow em but I have seen street side pollarded plane trees dropped in over night......as if tree ninjas had been there.

Originally posted by TREETX
good to hear something intelligent for a change...Having said that, I would top the f'ers if that is what my boss pays me to do.

So you think it's right to resist management when policy is wrong, unless it affects your paycheck? OK, NIMBY.....
I think it was murph who pointed out that some ethics are relative; that we're all whores with different prices and different issues we will sell out on under different conditions.
The strongest condition of course being poverty. When income is low and bills are high, ethical principles get bent or abandoned. That's a major issue to work out, from a bad position that everyone can relate to.

I am not sure that the policy there is wrong. Depends on the landscape and the intended use of it in the future. They may just be satisfying certain needs for permitting, etc with plans to remove the trees at some point later. I frequently don't have a lot of respect for super urban artificial landscapes where the trees are all planted in rows, etc - they somehow seem like pawns. A 400 yr ols oak is a different story......

Is something wrong with NIMBY? Everybody feels that way about something.

.02

Originally posted by TREETX
I am not sure that the policy there is wrong. Depends on the landscape and the intended use of it in the future.
True, we can't judge without knowing that.

Is something wrong with NIMBY? Everybody feels that way about something.
.02

Yeah there is, if they feel that way about most things.
.01