pruning practices

[murphy4trees]

Tree Brothers,
Daniel Murphy checking in around pruning practices.. Three threads, (co-dominant stems, proper pruning vs. limb whacking and how long??) came up recently that have got me thinking about this issue. I apologize in advance if this piece gets a little long and this is a complex subject that needs more than a sound bite. I believe arbos would do well to re-evaluate attitudes and beliefs about pruning. Can you look at pruning from a fresh place, as if you know nothing???

So why do you prune trees? Make a list of the reasons… hazard prune, light, air flow, clearance, appearance, reducing the weight of structurally compromised trees, size, fruit production etc… If these are on your list I respectfully suggest you are lying to yourself…

The real reason you prune trees is for the money$$$. If you weren’t getting paid you wouldn’t be doing it. So I believe that our industry as a whole is in state of denial about the influence that money (greed) has on pruning practices… A slightly more subtle denial than the guys who claim that spiking live trees doesn’t hurt them.. and denial just the same. I would like to shed some light on this shadowy truth.

An extreme example I recently heard about is a local co. I referred to in an earlier thread as follows..” his regular employer works only for the super rich.. they'll often prune the same trees every 6 months or sometimes even every 3 months..
We were talking about cabling a large maple and he asked if if he should get the deadwood.. I replied "that's a given... goes without saying"... Not at his regular job... they leave the deadwood when cabling for another reason to come back in 6 months....” Their yellow pages add states “ five certified arborists on staff”, and I know of at least three world class climbers that work there. So why are they pruning big trees every six months, and leaving deadwood etc.. if not for the money. Yet if you talked to them, I Am sure they would have some explanation for this practice that they’ve managed to convince themselves. I would call that denial..

So to what extent are you in denial about the influence of money on your pruning practices? How often do you recommend that your customers do nothing to their trees when you’re asked? When you do recommend pruning, what reason do you use to justify the recommendation? … That is what I Am suggesting we look at here.. the reasons you tell yourself and the customer for pruning, and what affect those reasons as a whole have on pruning practices industry wide. IE.. “Well ma’am we need to lighten up those big limbs and pop some holes in the sail to keep it from blowing apart in a big wind”.

JPS has made some references to this subject on recent threads.. He wrote “Anyone can do a raise and gut and still make proper cuts every time. they probably think they are doing good tree work. Tie high, work the tips, and keep wounds as small as possible. Thems the basics.” And in another thread he wrote “Dan, axiom of the trade "keep the cuts small". Reason; Decay, CODIT "wall one" is the weakest and birch is a poor comparmentalizer.”

To me that is saying big cuts hurt the tree so make small cuts when pruning, and what I believe is going unsaid there is that small cuts hurt the tree LESS…. And yet they hurt the tree. So why are arborists hurting trees? FOR THE MONEY$$$ These trees would often be better off if left alone.

That is not to say that pruning is uncalled for. Suburban trees are part of landscape and living space that must be shared with humans, buildings, and other structures, lawn, shrubs, flowers etc.. It is the job of the arborist to balance the needs of humans and their environment with the needs of trees. This often requires relatively severe pruning often removing large limbs and even large sections of the tree. Though this is often harmful to the tree, the benefits to humans must outweigh the costs. I believe that these benefits are often not achievable by making small cuts, and that pruning which does make primarily small cuts could often be avoided altogether. And I do agree that if the benefit can be achieved with small cuts they should be used in place of larger cuts. And I believe that large cuts would do far less harm to trees if arborists would make 100% certain that these cuts do not injure the branch collar.
So once again I ask.... why do you prune trees?
God Bless All,
Daniel

 

[treeclimber165]

As a freelance climber I'm no longer involved in the decision as to whether or not the tree gets trimmed. I trim the trees I'm told to the best of my ability. I HATE having to make big cuts on trees when smaller cuts will acomplish the desired result. But this is often disregarded when the customer comes out, looks up and says "Can you take off that big limb there going towards the roof!" with absolutely NO understanding of what thay are asking me to do. I've been forced to quit arguing in order to keep clients, so I quickly whack off the lead in a couple deft strokes rather than spending 15 minutes deadwooding and thinning it properly.

You are right that I do this for the money. And it is many times difficult for me when I know that I'm being asked to do something not in the best interest of the tree (or client, even though they refuse to believe me). So many times I have started to view these trees as 'future removals' rather than pruning jobs. It helps me sleep better at night and keeps food in the fridge.

But I always put forth my absolute best effort when asked to 'prune the tree like it should be done'. These are the jobs that keep me climbing. If every day were whacking off limbs back behind the roofline, I'd find a different career.

 

[murphy4trees]

165,
I would like to make a distinction between your situation and the point I made above.. You do what you do consciously.. that is you know you're doing what you have to do to make money... And you know and readily admit that it's an inferior pruning practice. You are not in denial..
I Am writing about the denial in our indusrty related to pruning..
The pic is of a Norway maple encroaching on a Norway Spruce.. The picture is taken from beside the garage.. The spruce is giving my customer's house, porch, and backyard privacy from the neighbor's house, as seen behind the trees. So it was my job to balance the harmful effects of a hard pruning on the maple vs. the health of the spruce and it's function as a privacy barrier... This balance could not be achieved with only small cuts..
Now the other side of the maple could have been pruned using small cuts only... but why do it? Enough harm was already done to the tree.. Why do more?
God Bless All,
Daniel

 

[murphy4trees]

Here is the tree after pruning.
D

 

[treeclimber165]

Looks like you did the best you could under the constraints placed upon you. I'm certain I would have been told to remove the main lead on the left as well as the portion of the lead where your rope is set. I'm starting to accept the fact that you mentioned earlier- The needs of the people/environment need to be weighed against the needs of the tree.

Looks like that maple is a 'future removal' anyway, so in that situation I'd cut off what I was told and even try to leave tiny stubs for the removal crew in 5 years. Even if they won't admit it, the owners do not want the maple there. They will have it pruned over and over because there is no room for it, and when it declines enough from repeated wounding, they will finally have it removed. It's a doomed tree no matter how you trim it.

 

[murphy4trees]

Here is a pic of a larger Norway Maple on same property... no leaves.. centerred in pic.
This pic is after pruning.. Unfortunately I didn't take a before shot.
So you can't see how hard I pruned this tree. I took a lot of big branches out of the center/top of this tree, though it still has a fairly nice shape.
The tree has co-dominant stems with included bark, some other structural defects, a fairly hard lean towards the yard with some question as to root damage from grade changes, and was heavily shading some very expensive new plantings that were installed as a privacy barrier.
Again small cuts would not have provided the required benefits...
And due to structural problems a well implemented hard prune now could possibly extend the life of the tree.
Perhaps not coincidently, the customer informed me that the company I referred to above does her spraying and fertilizing.. This is the third time I've pruned her trees in the last year. I wonder why she prefers me to do her pruning...
God Bless All,
Daniel

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I'm not saying that I never make big cuts. I have walked away from work where people wanted me to raise a tree by removing 3 low 10-15 inch limbs.

I argree with you whole heartedly, pruning is controled wounding of the tree.

Other places I've argued from a different stance, when Wulkie is saying that all pruning is for money and the vast majority should not be done.

Here is my veiw point. Tree growth is a semi-random prosses influanced by environmental factors and genetics. Lets call it a chemical yes/no/maybe "desicion tree".

This goes for branch grwoth as well as branch sheading.

In pruning for long term good structure we are making decisions how the tree can grow well for the next 50-100 years. Not just adapting it to it's micro environment, but to it's relationship with other parts of it's system. deflecting groth of one stem/limb/branch away from another. Opening channels of light to lower limbs and inner canopy. Stunting s/l/b systems to reduce vitality, or increase the bushieness, change the moment 0of bend.....

I don't think many of us are in denial as to why we are there, some of us just don't define it to the customer.

What I man here for is to provide a science based service to the customer. To find theire needs and desires and to maintain their property in the best way possible in accordance with those desires.

If the client does not want to listen, our relationship will not last long.

I've spoke on this before, some of us see ourselves as tree advocates, and the other end of the spectrum sees themselves as people who make money doing waht the client wants. These are the conciencuos tree workers, not the McBubbas of the world.

I know many good tree people that will spend time making perfect cuts throughout the canopy, decisions for the trees structure only, then make a few nicely visible shiners for the sole purpose of the client seeing that something was done.

How often do we find ourselves in a tree wondering if we should take a few more cuts to make it look like something was done?

If the putpose is to provide long term clearance to objects in the landscape, then that is what has to be done. But a good arbo can still sell good prune for this most of the time.

As for your picture, I see no problems with what you did. Maybe I need to define small cuts, I don't mean felco sized cuts, but relative to the size of attachment origin. maybe an aspect ratio.

The differenace between what you did with the maple and the birch anecdote is purpose of the activity. One large heading cut is not nessesarily as good as many small one. Some times it is better though.

When dealing with the amin stem or a large limb I feel that introducing the possiblity of deacy in an area that is, or will be, a point of bending is not a good pruning desicion.

How amny read this far without skipping anything?

 

[Stumper]

Good points Daniel. You are correct that we are forced to balance the needs of trees and the needs of people. The people always "win". For me the important thing is to educate the customer on how to get the end results they desire rather than just giving instant gratification which is counterproductive in the long term. Even the"good" long term results may be injurious to the tree but if the customer understands then I'm okay with it.

I don't completely agree that if big cuts are bad then smaller cuts are just "less bad". Pruning can and frequently does prolong a tree's life. Granted that pruning wounds the tree but if those small wounds prevent a major wound and death then they were not "bad" for the tree. An imperfect parrallel can be found in human medical care. Innoculations and surgical procedures cause wounds but may prevent untimely death.

While thinning the tips may be more desirable than larger cuts in the top third of the tree, properly made cuts in either location seldom cause decay problems in my experience. The really BAD big cuts are the ones I see made in the lower third of the tree's overall height. When someone whacks off 1/2 (or 1/3 or 1/4) of a mature tree's canopy in one cut then decay is almost a foregone conclusion.

For what it is worth-I'm a lousy salesman. I tell customers all the time that-"Sure, there are things I can do to that tree but I don't see anything that is truly needed."

 

[Stumper]

JPS, Evidently we were posting at the same time. I just read your post . Well said!

 

[Tom Dunlap]

When our clients go to the meat market, they buy by the pound. Too often that mentality pervades the measure of a "good" job. Pay more, get more brush. Once you as the employee or contrcat climber make the descision to "prune by the pound" you become a Wood Butcher. Pure and simple. No discussion. If you really are a professional, you don't perform unprofessional work. You do what is best for the tree.

Many years ago I changed my way of thinking from the "Customer is ALWAYS right" to "Do the BEST for the trees." My work load hasn't changed, in fact I have more work now. The chip truck goes home with less debris and the trees are healthier.

Would you hire a body shop to paint over rust and not expect the paint to bubble off? Would you trust Arthur Anderson to do your book work? Why would you ever do low quality work?

I'm sure this is a familiar story:

You're asked if you would have extra-marital sex with the person of your fantasies for a million dollars. You know that's a bad thing to do but who could pass up the money? You say, "Yes." Then you're asked if you would have sex for twenty bucks. "Of course not! What do you think I am a Whore?" The reply, "We already determined that, now all we're doing is setting the price."

What's your price for tree work?

I've attempted to walk away from doing work that the client wanted that didn't follow industry or personal standards. When I tell them that I won't do the work because it doesn't follow accepted industry standards and is harmful to trees, most times, I get the job, done MY way. People will respect honesty. The longer our profession accepts low quality work, the longer we won't be considered a profession by the public.

What do you think of this bumper snicker?

Wood Butchers get Paid by the Pound The picture would be of a gutted tree, huge pile of brush, a climber with a meat cleaver on the end of a chainsaw getting paid a pile of money and everyone is happy...except the tree. The tree is weeping.

Tom

 

[Eric E.]

What a good idea...plant the expensive shrubs that need sun in the shade. Sounds like your pruning client needs to ditch the other guys. If she needs to spend money so badly I'll do the work when I'm in the Philly area.

 

[treeclimber165]

Originally posted by Eric E.
What a good idea...plant the expensive shrubs that need sun in the shade...

I didn't even pick up on that, Eric. Further proof that the client does NOT want the tree and plans on removing it, she just may be in denial about it. If she creates enough other parameters to justify removing the tree, she will eventually remove the tree.

I'm finding myself using two totally different pruning approaches depending on the customer. About 60% do not like or want trees, and hire a tree company to reduce the amount of shade/cover/leaves they have to deal with. I don't bother with extensive tip work on these trees because no one will appreciate it and I will be criticized for wasting time. I've fought long and hard to convince these people otherwise and have NEVER succeeded. The trick is to identify this type of client early and perform the work as a partial removal. Any other effort will be wasted.

The other 40% truly like their trees. They may not know much, but are willing to listen to your advice and information. They appreciate your skill and knowledge when you artfully prune a tree to reduce risk, deadwood and future defects. They enjoy saving hundreds of dollars a year on their power bill because the trees protect their house from the heat and elements. For these type of clients I will go the extra mile to do whatever is in the best interest of the TREE. I truly love working in these type of trees.

 

[murphy4trees]

JPS,
I have briefly read some of Bob Wulkowitz's writings and I suppose he and I are saying similar things... though I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "vast majority" of pruning should not be done.. I Am asking that we look at the influence of money on pruning and our present industry standards... I Am with stumper in that I often will tell my clients to "leave that tree alone". The bigger and older they are the more often I argue against pruning.

How often do you talk yourself out of work?... Tom. Though you make good points about "more is not better".... understand that I Am calling into question the industry standards that you so passionately support. To summarize and restate my position....

Pruning, in it's highest form, is about more than what is good for trees.. It is about what is good for the whole... the whole interface of landscape and humans.. This higher good is often only achievable through "making big cuts". Therefore pruning practices which prescribe small cuts are often unnecessary and are neither beneficial to the tree or the "whole". Yet these unnecessary and harmful pruning methods are accepted as industry standards and regularly practiced by highly skilled and educated arborists.

In a way this is more of an academic argument for now that must take a backseat. These pruning methods do relatively little harm when compared to the gross and vulgar malpractices of topping, spiking, lions tailing, and over pruning, which are still so prevalent in our industry. Only once our industry has evolved to a higher awareness will we be ready to take the next evolutionary step. Until then there is much work to do and I commend those on this site that have so brilliantly championed this higher awareness..
And for those that are ready I ask you to look ahead with me.

God Bless All,
Daniel

 

[NeTree]

Excellent and thoughtful post Daniel. Ya hit the nail on the head.

 

[TREETX]

I get the uncomfortable feeling that there is an implication here that it is unethical to charge money for doing anything to a tree that doesn't improve its health, that simply making it "look better" is not enough.

I can say that the work here in this part of TX is different than what a lot of you all do. I know what 165 means about 60% of the pruning has something to do with spatial relationships i.e. - a redistribustion of light by removing green. Except for rose people and the lady who plants non-shade tolerant plants under her 200yr old oak, that never happens here.

Being a dry climate, deadwood of any size doesn't really shed from trees here and they get a really heavy deadwood load. Especially live oaks, red oaks(Q. buckeii/texana), and cedar elms. That results in the majority of work being done is solely for aesthetic purposes. What is the matter with that?? Yes, I do it for the money.

you will have to learn that it is just as much a people biz as it is a tree care biz. How you work that angle is where the ethical part comes in. I have clients that want me to come back after just one season and do another crown cleaning because there is .5 inch dead in their live oak after a year. Instead of capitalizing, I say that there isn't enough dw to warrant entry into the tree at this point in time. Tell them that it will be better for their tree and their pocketbook if they call me back in a year. I have a good rep for not ringing the cash register on people.

It is not a crime to make money.

 

[Greg]

The worst is when the neighbors have been admiring, and have fallen in love with the beautiful job of lion tailing that was done accross the street. It is a very hard sell to get people to change thier minds in those cases when they want their trees to look just like those.
I would Really like to see some ISA or NAA bilboards or Ads promoting proper tree care.
Greg

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Late night infomercials...

I was doing some restorative work on a pear once and the lady next door came out beratingt me for doing poor work and taking advantage of the old man, my client.

I don't think this discussion is acidemic, becuase we as a group are past the regular hack work. This is about our work principals, not the industry as a whole.

She was pointing to the green ash she had a city boy come in and do side work on, typical raise&gut "proffesional" street work.

I understand Dan's point, but I assume that most people are aware how much the bottom line influances their work. I've had arguments with my clients about not removing a whole limb, but they want to do the drastic work because they dont want to take the extra time explaining it to their custome.

A few years ago we were having a similar discussion on roof clearance, I was still running a crew and stated that I will try to get a home's system will not be shocked by the sudden loss of that much dynamic material. One responce was why not get it over with all at once? This after I went through my schpeel.

What I would do is tell them it should be done over several years, if I could not get them to leave the limb and just reduce it. I would then do a drastic tip reduction and stunf the down limb branches. The majority of the time, I could then convince then to keep it that way instead of risking a large pocket of decay in the trunk or large limb.

All pruning is wounding, and every cut should be a conciouse decision. If the bigger cut is made because it is the best, then that is good tree work. If it is made because it is easiest....

Also, if the tree is not one that will be in the landscape in 25 years then we should take that into concideration, Dan's maple/spruce interface or instance.

Yes we do this for a living, as I've said before, we are specialized property managers. If we are not taking advantage of the client/customer, then there is nothing wrong with that. it is a given, just like the mechanic we takle the car to, or the plumber who replaces the broke toilette.

Soon I will be paid like a plumber too

 

[Stumper]

I should be paid like a plumber! -My finances are in the toilet.

 

[murphy4trees]

As far as pruning for beauty only... I highly recommend it... It's artistic and for me gives great joy. It definately serves a good purpose. It's something to feel proud of at the end of the day and provides lasting value to the customer... you can literally change peoples lives by doing a good job. Sometimes when we make a tree beautiful we extend it's life by convincing the client to keep the tree. To me that is worth $$$.
As far as pruning hard to keep the customer happy... I do far less of it than I did years ago... I can't remember the last time I did. And we have a large red oak coming up that will be a good test.. The customer wants the tree pruned hard.. I told him we have to be careful.. "more is not better" etc.. he seems to understands that ...and I can still tell that he wants to see some difference for the money... So I will make a few more cuts than I'd prefer...just a few.
As far as elevating trees... JPS referred to this as "raise"...
I think it is very often a good practice.. It serves a number of purposes...few people realize how important proper air circulation is to the well being of the household and landscape and how much better the air will move when you put 10-15' between the roof (etc) and the tree.. I learned that lesson camping in August. Elevating also allows rays of light that make their way through the upper canopy to the ground.. often times two or three cuts can increase many times, the light available to turf and undergrowth. And often removing lower branches opens up lines of sight into the trunk and branch structure that are very impressive, while eliminating that overbearing sense these branches can create. All of these benefits are available by just mimicking the natural process of trees shedding their lower branches.. especially when the shoulder starts bulging.. it's clear the tree is getting ready to shed the branch. If the tree is vigorous and the cut isn't too big and doesn't violate the trunk or branch collar, it should seal... That said I almost lost a good friend years ago because I refused to take a monster lowest branch off a big beech. He was going for the "cudda likea dis" look.
AS far as reducing shock to trees... if you want to know what the tree feels like when being pruned, hold your ear up against the trunk as you are running a chainsaw on a branch...
More on that later.
God bless All,
Daniel

 

[The Climber]

a lot of arborist's look to make money where ever available reguardless what the impact to the tree might be, but I also know that there are a lot of people like me who have integrity, that realize being honest with their coustomers does not empty their refridgarator. The way I see it, the home-owner represents there needs and desires and it is up to us to represent the trees needs. Some times compromises are nessesary but many times I refuse to do what the client wants. It could cause me to loose that client but it usualy doesn't, and I never have potential future coustomers see me thrashing a tree or see a tree die soon after seeing me in it