Tree pushing

[johnsayen]

Hello,

In the BC Faller Training Standard they demonstrate something called tree pushing, which cuts one tree and the falls a second tree behind it, having the second tree push the first tree over. What is not clear to me, since this is a seemingly dangerous operation, what's the point? Why not fall the first tree and then fall the second? I'm sure there's a reason. Thank you.

 

[johnsayen]

Thinking about it more, it must be a tactic to use a second tree to help persuade the first tree to fall against its natural lean. This would allow the sheer force of the second tree to do the persuading rather than a more dangerous fall of a single tree against a natural lean, that would require extra wedging and caution.

Or am I way off?

 

[Mad Professor]

Best to avoid having to resort to that if possible. The BC faller training mentions that I believe.

 

[Tigwelder83]

There are different levels of tree work skill, kinda like working on your car. Playing dominos with 100' trees isn't the how to change your tire of the car repair world... its more like how to keep your Ford 6.0 diesel together to 500k miles. It requires lots of skill, even more luck, and if things go wrong, they go very wrong.

 

[ATH]

I'll admit to having pushed some trees. Doing timber stand improvement cutting a bunch of maple less than 12" DBH. Some don't have enough mass to fall all the way and barely hang in the branches of another tree on the way down. I'll just lay the next one right on it. The big danger there is it could very well push the stump back, so nest be on the move as soon as tree #2 starts to go!

 

[ATH]

Thinking about it more, it must be a tactic to use a second tree to help persuade the first tree to fall against its natural lean. This would allow the sheer force of the second tree to do the persuading rather than a more dangerous fall of a single tree against a natural lean, that would require extra wedging and caution.

Or am I way off?

The problem here is, by your description, Tree #1 is cut and leaning towards you... Yes it is unlikely to fall of wedged. But if the lean isn't heavy, just keep pounding wedges. If it is heavy, Tree #2 may not push it all the way over, but move it enough that the wedges fall out, them it comes back. If Tree #2 is coming out, why not take that first, then fell #1 back to the stump? Realize there may not be room for that in all circumstances...

 

[johnsayen]

The problem here is, by your description, Tree #1 is cut and leaning towards you... Yes it is unlikely to fall of wedged. But if the lean isn't heavy, just keep pounding wedges. Of it is heavy, Tree #2 may not push it all the way over, but move it enough that the wedges fall out, them it comes back. Of Tree #2 is coming out, why not take that first, then fell #1 back to the stump? Realize there may not be room for that in all circumstances...

I agree, this is the root of my initial question. Why is it a tactic at all? I suspect very specific circumstances. I was thinking, perhaps #2 leans against the desired path (leans toward a hill or something), but not that it leans toward the faller.

 

[AGoodSteward]

Entangled branches. That's when I've used it. Mostly in the woods. Felling tree 1 would result in a suspended tree, or an unpredictable fall because of branches clinging to each other. Felling tree 2 first would put weight on tree 1, yes, but might also cause a barberchair, or place the feller (me) in harms way when the whole thing comes down.

 

[beastmaster]

This technique is frowned upon in the logging industry. It can sometimes be useful when you have a dangerous snag, or hazardous tree situation. You’ll still need to do a face cut and back cut on the snag. The down side is if for some reason the first tree doesn’t push the other one over. Now your really screwed.