murphy4trees
Addicted to ArboristSite
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
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
Last edited: