Pine Tree

[Ekka]

Haha, that's what happened to this guys poor tree who started this thread.

Imagine you come home and see that!!!! You'd be fuming.

Jarrah, but what if the cuts were to standard?

AS4373 says bugger all about volume to be removed, so cut to standard and take 50% of canopy.

Nothing said about that, is there? Save me a trip outside to the ute to check and let me know if I'm wrong on this.

You'd be better off taking the aesthic and devalued property approach, no? Atleast you wouldn't have to wait for decline ... and what if it didn't decline and just kept on powering on? And then one day in a big storm it blew over ... Act of God!?

See, this is why lawyers are on both sides, coz it's an argument not black and white. If it were black and white or there were VPO's bingo ... easy Campese, just fine em and deal with it.

 

[arboralliance]

Yeh...

And thats why we dont have VPO's so the mates of the wigs can all rub a dub dub...

Its a cruel world...

 

[Ekka]

Yeah, win or lose the lawyer gets paid!

I never thought of that. Scoundrels.

 

[treeseer]

Big difference tween your Norfolks and our pines is resprouting. Our pines rarely do; in 20 years of pruning them I can count on one hand the instances of dormant buds releasing. If your norfolk bushes out at those cuts, that will tend to restore symmetry and also lessen sunscald.

a consultant may say the norfolk has a fair prognosis and the pine a poor one.

 

[pinus]

My neigbor has trimmed a pine tree that is on my property but literally the outside diameter of the trunk touches his property. He had a tree service co. come and trim every branch off of the tree from the base to the top on half the tree 180degrees around. Basically all the branches are on one side of the tree. the tree is about 60 ft tall. It is also located 15-20 feet from the side of my house. Would removing the branches on one side be detrimental to the tree and therefore to my house. It seems to me that it is an accident waiting to happen.

Any insight is appreciated

Actually, is it legal to prune a tree in my yard that overhangs into his all the way to the top?????

Thanks,
Dave

It seem a stupid situation in all aspects.
From yours neighbour: what he wanted light, space?
What he got: angry(?) neighbour (you), very unpleasantly looking tree (yard)

From yours side:
very unpleasantly looking tree with increased probability for the failure (dying-fall)
high voltage relations

Its so that cambium is carring nutrients preferably in the vertical direction and not driving them arount the trunk. So, the one side branches are mainly feeding roots of the same side.
If the tree even survives a such pruning a lot of years are needed and the new wood probably will grow in twisted way to compensate the situation

 

[freeflycpi]

Here are some pics

Sorry for the delay on some pics, I was away on a business trip.
Thanks for all the comments.

Dave

 

[sawinredneck]

My condolances!!!!!
Andy

 

[rebelman]

I don't know, it's not as bad as I thought. The top is still reasonably intact. You might thin your side in two years and hopefully it will be okay. Not ideal, but not disastrous. Mulching the root zone would help.

 

[pinus]

I don't know, it's not as bad as I thought. The top is still reasonably intact. You might thin your side in two years and hopefully it will be okay. Not ideal, but not disastrous. Mulching the root zone would help.

Two years, not enough, I think. No less than 5-7 years for the tree for the recovering before you can do some new crown correction, or the tree health and longevity is decreased substantially.

 

[Ekka]

Well the artist impression was pretty close.

But lets think outside of the box here, and dont start getting all "treehugger" on me etc.

This problem is universal.

But I've said this many times in many posts. Trees canopies should not intrude past boundaries.

Have a look at the second pic, there's bags of room in the front yard for this type of tree with zero intrusion.

If they were remnant indigenous vegetation they kept the wrong one and should have kept the one in the front yard.

If it was planted then that was down right inconsiderate.

The neighbour parks his car there, that's clearly the parking spot. That tree drops stuff all the time onto his car, ruining his paint job, perhaps dinging it with cones etc.

So it could be considered that the tree is a private nuisance where the tree diminishes the use and enjoyment of their property.

Now the tree huggers get up in arms .... hang on, the above is a fact, however, there are other solution like a carport, garage etc. But then why should the "victim" pay for this? Perhaps the neighbour could have offered and then the branches would have stayed.

So remember, just because you like trees it doesn't mean you have the right to force your desires upon other people ... keep them within your boundary.

If you have trees where the canopy tresspasses a neighbouring property then talk with them to see how they feel about it ... that will prevent this type of thing happening as the "victim" is entitled to remove any tresspassing parts without notice and in some cases return them to you.

 

[arboralliance]

Just a thought...

Well the artist impression was pretty close.

But lets think outside of the box here, and dont start getting all "treehugger" on me etc.

This problem is universal.

But I've said this many times in many posts. Trees canopies should not intrude past boundaries.

Have a look at the second pic, there's bags of room in the front yard for this type of tree with zero intrusion.

If they were remnant indigenous vegetation they kept the wrong one and should have kept the one in the front yard.

If it was planted then that was down right inconsiderate.

The neighbour parks his car there, that's clearly the parking spot. That tree drops stuff all the time onto his car, ruining his paint job, perhaps dinging it with cones etc.

So it could be considered that the tree is a private nuisance where the tree diminishes the use and enjoyment of their property.

Now the tree huggers get up in arms .... hang on, the above is a fact, however, there are other solution like a carport, garage etc. But then why should the "victim" pay for this? Perhaps the neighbour could have offered and then the branches would have stayed.

So remember, just because you like trees it doesn't mean you have the right to force your desires upon other people ... keep them within your boundary.

If you have trees where the canopy tresspasses a neighbouring property then talk with them to see how they feel about it ... that will prevent this type of thing happening as the "victim" is entitled to remove any tresspassing parts without notice and in some cases return them to you.

Maybe the BCC will send you all the debris from the Ficus...

 

[Ekka]

Hahaha, as mulch most OK!

Unless of course the tree has some sort of phythoera or armillaria ... I wonder if they tested for it?