cabling a dangerous tree

[ASD]

"O and ASD, please stop shouting ok? "
Sorry, had the cap lock on and didn't realize it:blush:

 

[fpyontek]

Fred, I agree with this. But without seeing the tree, none of us can say what should be done with it. ...

Treeseer, sorry I don't know your first name, maybe you didn't catch what Darkstar said:

I explained that the cables were in no way a solution but would only [possibly ] prolong failure. I put double cables in the tree at 2/3rds height . I mentioned repeatedly that these cables would not stop a total failure. I reccomended removal from the beganning ....
The tree expands with the wind and is slowly opening my 3200 pound test eye bolts .

... I think siccing the law on the tree owner is a little extreme, unless it threatens public property.

If the homeowner does nothing to correct the situation and something happens, Darkstar will still be found at LEAST partially liable.

Fred

 

[skwerl]

'Treeseer' is Guy.

If the homeowner does nothing to correct the situation and something happens, Darkstar will still be found at LEAST partially liable.

One small point with which I disagree, but it makes a big difference. I think that 'will' should be replaced with 'may'. If the tree falls and hurts somebody, and if the property owner gets sued, and if the property owner decides to lie about what transpired between himself and darkstar, and if darkstar gets dragged into the lawsuit as an additional defendant, and if they lose in court, then darkstar may be found partially liable (if the property owner's lie holds up). I believe this is a long stretch from 'will be found liable'.

Suggesting darkstar cover his backside is wise advice, but it is a far cry from certainty that anything would transpire. In 20 years in this field, I cannot personally recall a single incident in which I knew of an arborist being sued over a tree. And I've met and worked with a lot of arborists in 20 years. IMO you would be more likely to win the lottery or get struck by lightning. But that is why we have insurance (and pay dearly for it).

 

[treeguy020]

Have you thought about running threw bolts 3/4" in the split. My company does it all the time. I have bolted together many trees. Along with the cables the tree may not be as hazardous.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

I know a couple of arbos that have ended up in court because of a tree failure after they worked on them. No one was hurt but both cases were found against the arbo. We'r held to a much higher standard of care than a non-professional, whether we get paid for the work or not.

Having a hold harmless or some indemnity form is a barrier of some sort between you and loosing money.

In fact, all of this thread could be used against Dark and possibly against other arbos in an unrelated case.

 

[darkstar]

"Reduce the size of a tree with reduction cuts, shortening those branches which extend beyond the new, smaller canopy " Tree seer, thats about the best understanding in written form iv'e heard in a condensed sentance for canopy reduction ,with emphasis on reducing the size of the tree .
At this point i cannot make a plan for the next step as the customer has not contacted me . I will let you all know what they say as soon as i hear from them , and i appreciate the comments and advice. Dark

 

[protreecare]

Eye bolts do not open

If you where using eye bolts that where made to hold a tree together, then they will not open. Why with so much liability at stake would someone use some low grade 3200 lb eye bolts. What did you also use air craft cable with clamps. Man you should not be cabling any tree, anywhere.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

If you where using eye bolts that where made to hold a tree together, then they will not open. Why with so much liability at stake would someone use some low grade 3200 lb eye bolts. What did you also use air craft cable with clamps. Man you should not be cabling any tree, anywhere.

That's what I was thinking.
There is hardware specifically sold to be used for tree cabling, to use anything else is doing substandard work and opening yourself up to liability. The stuff is cheap and easy to install properly.
I strongly recommend you bring in a qualified arborist to take over the care of this tree.

FORGET THE BOLTS . TAKE SOME MEASUREMENTS JUST BELOW YOUR BOLTS GO TO A METAL FAB SHOP HAVE TWO 2 PIECE COLLARS MADE OUT OF 1/2 PLATE 18" TALL MADE BOLT THEM AROUND THE TWO MAINS TAKE A MEASUREMENT BETWEEN THE TWO GET A 6"X1/2" PIECE OF PIPE AND HAVE A CERTIFIED WELDER COME WELD IT IN BETWINE THE COLLARS (WELD COLLARS ALSO) MITE NOT BE PRETTY BUT WILL OUT LAST THE TREE

Again, there is no need to try to re-invent the wheel. Cabling hardware has already been invented. When you go out on your own and try to install home made crap like this you open your self up to liability, and if you don't care about liability, you should at least care about workmanship. With your system, there's no consideration for the expansion of the tree in diameter. As the tree grows, it will choke off and die, the dead top may fall and kill somebody, and your back in court.
Before a tool or product meets ANSI standards, or any industry standard, it is tested, used, and accepted by industry peers.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Brian,

If you don't get along with Guy, take it off the forum. Quit slagging.

Define topping and crown reduction, you'll see that they are different.

There is a difference between topping and crown reduction as you well know. Get out your copy of the A300 Best Management Plan-Pruning and read the book.

this might be a good opportunity to do one of Guy's crown reductions (topping to ISA specs).

Tom, you clearly don't understand the distinction.
You can not correctly say, "All topping is bad." or "All crown reduction is good."
ANSI has tried to create a definition of "topping" as making cuts at a specific place without regard to tree biology. Then they come up with "heading" which is a friendly "topping" cut, which is OK sometimes, unless it's "topping".
The problem lies in the fact that an ANSI compliant "crown reduction" can be done in such a way that it is worse than a non-ANSI compliant "topping". I see it done all the time. What we have is heavy handed pruning being done under the guise of ANSI compliant pruning.
Skwerl seems to be saying Treeseer is a heavy handed crown reducer, and solely from his posts, I have to agree.

 

[darkstar]

I would have used better gear but when i told them the price they said use the less expensive means . Ill pay for a good cable system and install it now . So lesson learned. Its true as well i should not be out cabling trees here no one ever ask for any of these trees to be saved they just say cut it or top it . Dark

 

[appalachianarbo]

the tree is located in a small playground

The owners of the tree just want to preserve the tree for shade reasons

when i told them the price they said use the less expensive means

Sounds like the homeowners need to reevaluate their priorities. Yeah, trees are great, but they are renewable, unlike a childs' life.
I know that without seeing it, I can't judge the safety of this tree, but it sounds like a good candidate for removal. Have you ever used a Hazard Tree Evaluation Form? A good guide is 'A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas' It may help you quantify the hazards of this particular tree.
If you do choose removal, and that crack is still widening, be sure to take measures to hold the trunks together while in the tree (especially if lowering from it)

 

[smokechase II]

Those owners need to be relocated to a Disney movie where all good trees never die.
I would suggest that in your certified letter you include citing from established arborist literature, documentary photographs of the tree and this thread (like mentioned by TreeCo) as backing for your necessary safety stand.
All the Best. Keep your kids at a different playground.

 

[Tree Frog]

Here is some food for thought and maybe a reality check if provided to the customer. Good luck in your situation.

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=23898&highlight=girl+scout+tree