"structural pruning"

[Stumper]

What is everyone's take on the article in the latest TCI issue. Mr Davis discusses pollarding which I have no problem with ( I don't particularly like it but recognize it is a legitimate pruning practice) but some of his photos about structural pruning raise big questions. In side by side pics depicting "good" and "bad". Both Trees have been reduced far beyond A300 guidelines (however I would expect both trees to survive). What gets me is the 'good" example which is an attractive symetrical tree -----That was topped previously. Not only that ,but topped much harder than the "bad" example!
It seems to me that there is probably a place for "structural pruning " in the ANSI standard. After all we all face jobs now and then when the only options are severe crown reduction or removal. Major reduction of the crown (call it drop crotching if you wish) does not equate to "Hat-Racking" without regard for laterals and potential regrowth. The challenge will be defining things so that noone finds carte blanche for 'topping'.

Please opine.

 

[Stumper]

Getting off topic immediately with my own thread but-Nice job on the SRT article Tom.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Stumper, don't you know the job isn't done until there is at least 1/2 the canopy on the ground?
I just wonder why the crown wasn't raised too. These industry rags always seem to illustrate removing every single branch that doesn't conform to their idea of what a tree should look like.
All trees, in their mind, must have all lower branches removed, along with any interior branches, and now, any higher branches that might load the trunk.
And why must pollarding be brought up every time an article discusses the problems of overpruning and topping? What a waste of 2/3's of every article, talking about a rare and obsolete practice.
With articles like this one, there is no wonder it's hard to talk customers out of over pruning their own trees, and why it's so easy for them to find arborist that will do it.

 

[Stumper]

Mike, What is strange to me is the "Industry rag" is published by the orginization which promotes A300 vigorously. I would have less problem with the article if it were dealing with the occasional unfortunate circumstance where radical reduction is required to keep a tree but despite the title it looks like a "topping" promotion. I wonder if the publishers are just trying to stir up another controversy?

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I could not read the entire article. Wehn they talk about repair, weight reduction and symmetry all in one job, my gag reflex kicks in.

The only time I would take that much out of tree is when there is storm damage to clean out.

In the examples given, I would sell the job as a long term project, reducing the crown over several visits.

I supose they also recomended high doses of 30-0-0 twice a year after the pruning too.

Methinks they need a few arborists on the board to vet the arrticles.

 

[treeclimber165]

I never got the Sept TCI issue. Heck, last year they were sending me TWO issues every month. Oh well, sounds like I didn't need to read it anyways.

Just a thought- What if Sherrill started publishing a monthly rag for the industry?

 

[geofore]

missing mag

Hey Treeclimber 165, go down to the Post Office and ask them where it is??? Most Post Offices have a stack of mags that come in without their address lables, they hang onto the mags for awhile and if no one comes in to claim them, the mags end up in the dumpster after a few weeks. They may have yours, they might even have mags you thought you should be getting.

 

[seanlarkin]

Originally posted by treeclimber165
Just a thought- What if Sherrill started publishing a monthly rag for the industry?

Uh, I'd never get to sleep, eat, play hockey, relax, see my wife or anything else ever again..............all those in favor, send an email to: [email protected]

Curse you Brian! j/k

 

[Tim Gardner]

LMAO Sean!

 

[Nickrosis]

Justin,

Funny that you should mention this topic today. I spent several hours this morning doing some corrective pruning and young tree training. It's interesting how ugly the trees can look afterwards, but it's uplifting to know that the tree will be better off in the long run.

I was with someone, Jake Ryg, who has an excellent philosophy about pruning - one that I'm agreeing with more and more as I listen to him. In a nutshell, he looks at pruning more in terms of what kind of decay will result, rather than what it will look like on the outside.

Hopefully after I study decay in Structure & Function, I'll have a better understanding. For now, though, I'm putting up with more BS arboriculture classes...

Nickrosis

 

[Stumper]

Hey everyone! In case you thought that Sean's long whiney email address is just a joke-it works. Let's mob him with requests. Of course we do want you to have a life Sean. Perhaps your wife would like to be Editor-in-chief of a NATION-WIDE Publication Then you could be her assistant and have lots of quality time together.

 

[seanlarkin]

PASS!

 

[Nickrosis]

I know it works. In fact, you can send an e-mail to ANYTHING as long as it ends in wtsherrill.com. It's great.

The same works for crawfordtree.com. The purpose is so that anyone can't figure out how to spell (know anyone like that?) and misspells the e-mail address will still get the message through - only to a default mailbox of some kind.

Nickrosis

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Nick, pruning small trees for structure and what the mentioned article are about is two different things.

 

[Rob Murphy]

Article

Here's the Link.
www.natlarb.com/content/pubs/September
Isn't this the owner of "Save-A-Tree ?

 

[Rob Murphy]

I don't think that worked.
I think this is a debate that needs to happen ...he does make some good points ..like how it is so much easier to (technogoly wise ) to remove trees.
I would rather prune and preserve a tree than remove..So rather than stifle the debate and call it disguised topping lets have a look at what is really being said.
Its to easy to 'write some thing off" because it goes against all our previous mindsets.

 

[Ghivelder]

OK Sean,
We decided to allow you to make it a bi-monthly publication!
You don't mention kids. Anyone without kids is sure to have loads of spare time!
Think of it, you could have a few special articles explaining why some things you've got there for years and no one wants to buy are just indispensable.

Sergio

 

[coydog]

the longer I'm in this business the more I think that 99% of the pruning done to mature trees is for aesthetic purposes only.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

the longer I'm in this business the more I think that 99% of the pruning done to mature trees is more harmful than good.

 

[murphy4trees]

Coy and MM,
I gotta agree with you there.. I almost always recommend against prunung big trees. That is unless there is a good reason... Last year I put my a$$ on the line twice by recommending against the removal of two majetic oaks. That was a risk I was willing to take 'cause of how important these trees were to their setting. I think very few others would have recommended agianst removal. So we pruned rather than removed them.
One thing I Am extra careful of when pruning old trees is making 100% sure that cuts don't violate the trunk or branch collar. This means cutting a litttle outside the target. I know Shigo says that is harmful.. that's fine for him and other scientists and in a perfect world all pruning cuts would be right on target..In the real worl I've seen it time and time again.. cuts missing the target and violating the collar or trunk... IMO that is soooooooo much more harmful than leaving a little stub. So I've been cutting on the safe side for many years and the results are good... little or no signs of stress and very little suckering..even when cut hard.
Trees have been self-pruning for thousands of years... shedding dead branches... they know how to do that.. CODIT...on the other hand they don't compatmentalize rips on their trunks well.
God Bless All,
Daniel