Is This Logical?

[Old Monkey]

Everyone here has an ethical code that governs their actions. No two persons follow exactly the same code and some adhere to their set of standards more vigorously than others. By arguing and discussing the choices presented to us by our trade we seek a common ethos. Part of me wants to embrace the shared values of this site and part of me is still sorting out what I believe. So here is my thought process, tell me what you think.

As I have mentioned in other threads, I have recently moved from Northern California to Boise, Idaho. I have gone from a lush environment filled with native oaks, redwoods, madrones, etc. to a high dessert where all the trees except the cottonwoods and willows are not native. Most all of the trees in Boise were planted or are self-seeded invasives. Because of this I feel that the majority of the trees here live, die or get hacked on subject to the whims of the land owners. I make every effort to educate customers of the detrimental effects of topping and pollarding. If, after all is said, its still what they want done, I do it. I am a climber/foreman, not an owner or an arborist, so that plays in. I prefer ethical pruning and yet none of these trees would be here without folks planting them. There are some two-hundred plus year-old trees in the North end that I would draw a line at, but most everything else doesn't rate that highly with me. Am I cold and insensitive? Am I too heavily biased toward native habitats? Also, I would rather remove a tree than top it/ or hack on it. I'm not sure that makes sense. What do you philosophers of trees think about this?

 

[glens]

As I have mentioned in other threads, I have recently moved from Northern California to Boise, Idaho. I have gone from a lush environment filled with native oaks, redwoods, madrones, etc. to a high dessert where all the trees except the cottonwoods and willows are not native.

I'd lived for several years in the Rocky Mountains of both northwestern Colorado and east-central Arizona (both locations at roughly 7000 ft elevation) and the high-altitude desert is interesting in its own right, but I moved to central Indiana (among many choices) for the <i>real trees</i>.&nbsp; Who cares if there aren't majestic mountains on the horizon if you can't even see it for the hardwoods you're amongst!

In terms of your current dilemma, I agree that's what it is and couldn't venture to guess how I'd feel about it there.&nbsp; Good luck!

Glen

 

[Stumper]

Old Monkey. I live in a nearly identical climate and situation. Your approach isn't illogical-you gave REASONS for it butI reason differently.First I'll pick a nit-Pollarding isn't "bad" for trees when done properly. I hate th look of pollarded trees and never encourage the high maintenance practice but it doesn't threaten tree health greatly. Topping ,onthe other hand is simply wrong. Not only is it bad for the trees,it is bad for the owner.-The perceived risks they are trying to mitigate are increased in a few years rather than lessoned. If shading or vistas are the issue then it will be worse than ever in short order. I won't top trees. This costs me a very few jobs -and gains me quite a few since my refusal to sell the customer something that isn't in their best interest impresses some people very favorably. I'd rather gain a 1/2 dozen loyal clients that trust me than keep one unteachable jerk who insists that he knows my business better than I do. If that tree is such a problem I'll remove it. I won't mutilate it.

 

[treeseer]

but most everything else doesn't rate that highly with me. Am I cold and insensitive? Am I too heavily biased toward native habitats? Also, I would rather remove a tree than top it/ or hack on it.

yes you are insensitive to the value of introduced species, and trees in general.

I don't know what "hack on it" means to you; likely different that it means to me, or to any other arborist. I leave more "stubs" now than I did thirty years ago, because each tree and each cut is different, and we've narrowed the definition of good pruning so much that sometimes breaking the rules is best for the tree.

I would rather work with a damaged tree than remove it, because I know replacements today have a harder time than they would have in the days of cleaner air and water and less pest pressure. Watching a salvaged tree bounce back brings me joy and hope every time; seeing a blank spot where there used to be a tree brings me grim satisfaction, at best.

As you hang out a little more with those local trees you may appreciate them more. Give em a chance.

 

[clearance]

Old Monkey-I loved what you said on another topic about line clearance men being "untouchables". Great line and sadly true on this site. Treeseer is one of the guys that gave me a hard time on that other post and told me I had no respect for trees blah, blah, even though I stated that I loved all conifers and some decidous trees. He would rather "work" with a damaged tree than cut it down (so the customer pays twice, once to fag it out and then to cut it down when it dies) I guess if you are not tree-hugging, anti-logging then you must hate trees in his book. Are you cold and insensitive about trees, no you are not, and we are talking about trees, not women or children. I don't believe in topping trees, but if the powerline is there, or the customer really wants it topped, it gets topped. We both work for tree service companies, key word service, not "let use tell you what to do with your property companies". My personal philosophy is that things on this earth are here to be used by us. Used, not abused. Favorite saying is "can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs" It is true. Continue to give the good advice about topping etc. but feel no guilt or shame when you do what the customer wants. That is service.

 

[spacemule]

yes you are insensitive to the value of introduced species, and trees in general.

I don't know what "hack on it" means to you; likely different that it means to me, or to any other arborist. I leave more "stubs" now than I did thirty years ago, because each tree and each cut is different, and we've narrowed the definition of good pruning so much that sometimes breaking the rules is best for the tree.

I would rather work with a damaged tree than remove it, because I know replacements today have a harder time than they would have in the days of cleaner air and water and less pest pressure. Watching a salvaged tree bounce back brings me joy and hope every time; seeing a blank spot where there used to be a tree brings me grim satisfaction, at best.

As you hang out a little more with those local trees you may appreciate them more. Give em a chance.

Hey Tree'sEar, what's your stance on sustainable logging?

 

[treeseer]

I don't believe in topping trees, but if ...the customer really wants it topped, it gets topped.... tree service companies, key word service, not "let use tell you what to do with your property companies".... give the good advice about topping etc. but feel no guilt or shame when you do what the customer wants. That is service.

That also describes prostitution. Two-Dollar Bill down on the corner also gives his customers what they want. And maybe something they don't want.

If electricians and plumbers did everything their customers wanted, we'd have a lot more fires and floods. Arborists should be on the level of these trades, and apply their knowledge and ethics, shouldn't they?

I run one of those "let us tell you what to do with your property companies", because I know more than the tree owner, as do most people here. That's why they call an arborist. If you want to be a saw for hire, go ahead. But there's a lot less future in that.

Yesterday I reduced 30 Leyland cypresses. Not topped, reduced. 3-5" cuts at large nodes, sloped away from the sun, half of them treated with a sealant (we'll get that NEWTS thing going again elsewhere). The customer was concerned that it may be the wrong thing to do, and wanted the tops thinned (again) instead. I shook out the dying lower foliage in front of him and said "give these lower branches light, or give them death".

If you hate cottonwoods or see little value in the trees in Boise, try looking at the value they provide to their owners and imagine the community without them. Comparing them to other trees in other places is not fair. I don't see redwoods or koas here in NC, but that doesn't make the trees here worth any less.

Sustainable logging? Sure, I do that on my own land; l cut and mill pines when I need the boards, to promote diversity and to favor higher-value species. I look at value as a standing asset, value as material, effect on surroundings, potential liabilities, and most important all the contributions made by a tree, BEFORE deciding its fate. Here are just a few noted for a grove of oaks at a county building that were threatened by sewer construction:

Shade. Located on the southern exposure of the building, all these trees block the radiation from the sun in the summer months. The temperature under large trees is often more than ten degrees cooler than in the open. A nearby property which lost all its shade trees had a 67% increase in cooling costs.
Since the trees are deciduous, the sun penetrates them, warming the building in winter.

Transpirational Cooling. A mature oak tree can transpire over 200 gallons of water through its leaves per day. The evaporation of this water into vapor has a considerable cooling effect, and by recycling the water before it gets to the ditch, the trees save the county on stormwater control costs.

Erosion control. By intercepting precipitation, and also through its network of feeder roots near the surface, these trees keep the soil intact. Through the activity of microorganisms attached to and among these roots, they make a hospitable environment for smaller ornamental plants to thrive, and build the soil resource.

Wind control. By deflecting, obstructing and filtering the wind, they moderate the climate for this property. This effect also benefits the nearby community. By filtering sunlight, they provide the perfect environment for the understory plants such as the azaleas. If the trees were gone, these plants would be stressed by the increasingly harsh climate , become susceptible to insects and disease, and possibly die.

Pollution and noise abatement. Gaseous and particulate pollution is intercepted by the leaves and bark, and buffered by the rootzone. The sound of traffic and other urban activity is muffled.

Ecosystem values. By attracting, sheltering and feeding wildlife, these mature trees are keystone species in the local ecosystem. Their removal would have a ripple effect through the community of songbirds and small mammals, and other species that often escape human notice.

Architecture. Aesthetic values are harder to quantify, and are technically outside the scope of this report. However, most landscape architects would attest to value delivered by framing views, shifting patterns of sun and shade and tying together landscape elements. To the layperson’s eye, the rounded tree canopies soften and complement the architecture of building, driveway and parking area, bringing natural elements into the urbanizing surroundings.

The Placement of these oaks is in an open area where they have attained full size without any need to prune them for size restriction. Their spacing allows for each tree to develop a symmetrical form, which makes them stable assets. The lack of damage from ice storms and hurricanes speaks for their long-term, low-maintenance value. If undisturbed, they can be expected to keep growing on this site for generations to come.

 

[fpyontek]

Is this logical? Absolutely, you sound like the voice of reason and courage, for bringing these issues up.

Old Monkey, it sounds like whatever you do will be the right choice. The fact that you are questioning your choices says to me that you are intelligent and capable of weeding through all the factual and erroneous information presented and making the right choice for the given situation. You only have to look at the medical field to see my point. How many times in the last twenty years have you heard how eating one food or taking large doses of some vitamin was beneficial to your health, only to be contradicted by some subsequent study. Intelligent people will weigh all the information presented and make an correct choice.

Invasive species.

In the northeast we have an invasive species called Ailanthus, the tree of heaven. It's the tree from hell. Imported from China in 1860's and within a hundred years it had spread over the east coast. It's more than a nuisance, its a hazard. With weak wood, rapid propagation and fast growth, I feel these trees should be removed.

I make a distinction between topping and Cutting Back. Topping is bad for the tree. The same could be said about amputation. But sometimes to save the life of the person or tree, it is necessary.

Topping: Making large diameter cuts on most trees will almost always lead to decay.

For example, the client has a large tree, which lost part of its top. Now the tree has a large cavity and the top is in danger of breaking out. You explain this to the client and he says that he loves the tree and is there anything you can do? Do I tell him, in my best drone voice, no I can't because topping is bad for the tree. Well excuse me but I believe removal is also bad for the tree. I'll do what I can if it dosn't compromise safety. I explain that this is a temporary solution and the tree will have to be checked periodically and may in fact have to come down sometime in the future. If the client aggrees, that's what I'll do.

Cutting Back: Small diameter cuts will heal over on most healthy trees.

I read in a thread here on ArboristSite recently how the consensus was to tell the client to remove the Bradford Pear rather than cut it back, I guess holding themselves to some higher standard. Well these guys are probably the same people who sold these problem trees to client in the first place. I won't recommend a Bradford Pear because of its weak crotches and the continual need to be cut back. But if I've informed the client and the client still wants that tree, then that is what the client will get.

Fred

 

[newb]

My opinion is that people that want trees topped are price shoppers. They have no knowledge of tree care nor do they care. They are going to call out as many people that will come and then hire there brother-in-law that has a poulan. I wont even answer a call any more for topping.

 

[treeseer]

Ailanthus, the tree of heaven. It's the tree from hell. It's more than a nuisance, its a hazard. With weak wood, rapid propagation and fast growth, I feel these trees should be removed.

I agree with all Fred said except this. Good points on topping vs. cutting back!

Ailanthus is a well-adapted tree for urban use. I treat them with growth regulators, but do not remove them from sites where they belong. Paulownia, chinaberry, mulberry, all these alleged "weed" species have their (limited) place. If we start making lists of species that should always be removed because of some genetic or cultural issue, where will that list stop?

 

[Stumper]

Newb, I answer them-over half the time I talk them out of topping and get the job of doing something better.

Fred, I'm not sure what you mean by that technical term "cutting back". Heading cuts certainly have a place in training young trees. Crown reduction is seldom "good" for a mature tree but it is a far better choice than hatracking. I do crown reductions -even recommend them occasionally. Communication is such a challenge. It is difficult at best and horribly frustrating when we all think we speak the same language but actually do not. :angel:

 

[fpyontek]

Ailanthus is a well-adapted tree for urban use. I treat them with growth regulators, but do not remove them from sites where they belong. Paulownia, chinaberry, mulberry, all these alleged "weed" species have their (limited) place. If we start making lists of species that should always be removed because of some genetic or cultural issue, where will that list stop?

Hi Treeseer, I also agree with you on urban use, but how do you prevent your seeds from contaminating you neighbors property? Regulators aren't 100 % effective.

 

[fpyontek]

Hi stumper,
Sorry for the use of the term "cutting back" but with several terms for the same thing I felt this was the most descriptive. The ISA may have also felt the same way. See their web page on "Why Topping Hurts Trees" at :
http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/topping.asp
or an excerpt in the paragraph below.

Alternatives to Topping

"There are times when a tree must be reduced in height or spread. Providing clearance for utility lines is an example. There are recommended techniques for doing this. If practical, branches should be removed back to their point of origin. If a branch must be shortened, it should be CUT BACK to a lateral that is large enough to assume the terminal role. A rule of thumb for this is to cut back to a lateral that is at least 1/3 the diameter of the limb being removed."

Fred

 

[topndrop]

Invasive species.

In the northeast we have an invasive species called Ailanthus, the tree of heaven. It's the tree from hell. Imported from China in 1860's and within a hundred years it had spread over the east coast. It's more than a nuisance, its a hazard. With weak wood, rapid propagation and fast growth, I feel these trees should be removed.



Fred

Are you talking about Chinese Tallows? I can't find a reference to the tree you called "Ailanthus". Possibly my own ignorance...
We have a real problem with these trees here in FL. I am constantly removing these trees that the landscapers put in about 20-30 years ago.

 

[fpyontek]

Are you talking about Chinese Tallows? I can't find a reference to the tree you called "Ailanthus". Possibly my own ignorance...
We have a real problem with these trees here in FL. I am constantly removing these trees that the landscapers put in about 20-30 years ago.

Chinese Tallows : http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/sapium.html

Ailanthus: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/aial1.htm

 

[Stumper]

I wanted to delete this double post which was like the post which follows. Deletion is no longer an option. ]:Monkey:

 

[Stumper]

Fred, We are on the same page regarding reduction cuts.

 

[Old Monkey]

Good points all. Hacking a tree to me means making big heading cuts with no no laterals, lions tailing, lifting up the canopy for no good reason, trimming tree out season, cutting off one side and leaving an out of balance hazard tree, etc.

Treeseer- I like urban forests even if they are not natives, I chose to buy a house in an older part of town so I could enjoy the mature trees. I still think that they exist to serve a purpose and when they don't, they go. Most of the trees here are selected for rapid growth, a poor choice in my book. I advise people to plant fast grower and slow growers at the same time and plan to remove the fast grower when slow grower matures. At one point, maybe 30 or 40 years ago everyone planted silver maples. In the intervening years most of them have been topped at least once and are in bad shape. I tell people that they would be better off removing these trees while its economically feasible and starting over with something that will not become so large and dangerous. I didn't plant these trees next people's houses and I wasn't the guy that told them they needed topping. I can only deal with the situation as it stands now. Many trees are too big or are too unreliable to be maintained in someones yard. I love trees but I can't separate from the needs of the customer.

 

[Ekka]

Hey Old Monkey

Over here in Brisbane (20 years behind the rest of Australia) lopping & topping is running rife. Everywhere you go you see it, and heaps of people phone me for it. Believe me, I'm missing out on heaps of money and even alienating customers because of it. Just today an old codger wanted his spotty gum cut in half.

Sometimes you feel the more knowledgable you become the more disadvantaged you are because you drive past that quote a few weeks later and see the topped tree .... you didn't get paid though!

So how many times is it that if you don't do it some-one else will.

The problem is that the only time the law/standards of pruning is enforcable is when the tree is a protected one. If there is no protection order on the tree it's a free for all ... try that with plumbing or electrical.

One company over here has a big ad in the Yellow Pages with a photo of them just finished topping a big tree out of a bucket ... call Bla Bla Professional Treelopping we can do this for your trees too!

Hvae fun.

 

[glens]

In some respects much knowledge can be a curse.