ANSI Pruning Standards--Comment?

[treeseer]

Here is the draft of the 2006 Standards. Comments will be taken until Sept 25.

http://128.241.193.252/PDFs/A300Part1-Drft1-V1-PubRev.pdf

So many at this site speak up when they perceive pruning that they say are not up to standards (how many have a copy of the 2001 version? yeah that's what I thought), I thought they may want to be making constructive suggestions to those who can make a difference.

New language on Structural Pruning and Root Pruning--positive additions well written imo. I had 7 areas of concern before I got to 5.9. Utility:

4.3.3--delete "internodal"--pollarding cuts can and should be made at nodes.

4.4.3--add "often", or delete "undesirable". Some stubs are necessary to leave, such as on storm-damaged trees.

4.5.0--add "often internodal"

4.5.2--add "upright" or "vertical". watersprouts are NOT synonymous with "epicormics". There are many types of epicormics, some make good permanent branches, while few watersprouts do.

5.5.2--SHOULD be considered, not SHALL. This is a proposed change from 2001 and it is a bad idea. Does every tree that is pruned to clear a house or a road HAVE TO be considered for removal?

5.7.2.3--delete "internodal"--the locations for the cuts can and should be at nodes.

5.7.2.4--delete "Water" and just say "sprouts".

Read carefully and see what you think.

Ekka, is your AS4373 like this? Do your standards discourage internodal pruning?

 

[squisher]

I have the 2001 ansi pruning standards. Had to go to my truck and grab them but I'm a little confused with some of your changes.
4.5.0 utility space: The physical area occupied by a utility's facilities and the additional space required to ensure its operation. add often internodal where?

5.5.2 To obtain the defined objective, the growth cycles and structure of individual species and the type of pruning to be performed should be considered. Removal?

And I assume that you mean 5.7.3.3 and 5.7.3.4 for the last two changes

So you're saying we can all scrutinize these standards and suggest our own changes?

 

[Ekka]

If ours weren't copyrighted I'd throw a copy up. Seems funny to have a govt document copyrighted though, like you'd wnt to encourage circulation wouldn't you.

Ours has pics and all, pretty simple really.

Section 10 LOPPING AND TOPPING, lopping or topping is the cutting of branches or stems between branch unions or at internodes on young trees.

It's an unacceptable practice for the following reasons .... then there's 6 listed there that we all know about.

So, yes, in a nut shell it's discouraged.

 

[treeseer]

squisher I'm sorry I forgot to add the link; http://128.241.193.252/PDFs/A300Part1-Drft1-V1-PubRev.pdf

Yes we can all scrutinize these standards and suggest our own changes. It's all there on the tcia site. http://128.241.193.252/Public/gov_standards_review.htm However, if you have not seen the 2001 version and are new to the process, remember the review board is volunteers who should not be dissed.

The numbers are different because of the additions.

If ours weren't copyrighted I'd throw a copy up. Seems funny to have a govt document copyrighted though, like you'd wnt to encourage circulation wouldn't you.

Yeah you would think so. Strange. Ours is not a govt doc; it sells for $15. after it's printed, but when it's in the draft form it's public info and that is why I posted it.

Section 10 LOPPING AND TOPPING, lopping or topping is the cutting of branches or stems between branch unions or at internodes on young trees.
It's an unacceptable practice for the following reasons .... then there's 6 listed there that we all know about.

That sounds like more specific language than we have here on topping. I'm suggesting the addition of 'often internodal" Ours talks bout cutting at a "predetermined height'--does yours? So Eric I guess my question is, why can't you cite those standards in bold print and point to violations in these trees and notify the authorities though their channels?

 

[Climb020]

4.3.3--delete "internodal"--pollarding cuts can and should be made at nodes.

4.4.3--add "often", or delete "undesirable". Some stubs are necessary to leave, such as on storm-damaged trees.

4.5.0--add "often internodal"

4.5.2--add "upright" or "vertical". watersprouts are NOT synonymous with "epicormics". There are many types of epicormics, some make good permanent branches, while few watersprouts do.

5.5.2--SHOULD be considered, not SHALL. This is a proposed change from 2001 and it is a bad idea. Does every tree that is pruned to clear a house or a road HAVE TO be considered for removal?

5.7.2.3--delete "internodal"--the locations for the cuts can and should be at nodes.

5.7.2.4--delete "Water" and just say "sprouts".

From what I see and understand I have to agree with you Treeseer. Storm damage trees are a great example for your first revision. Leaving the stup will help minimaze disease spread as well as decay being there are times where a desired cut cannot be made. Chisholm showed a very good example online with pics that support what you are saying.

Remoming every tree around the road and house just seems to be an idea that someone didn't not think up while they were sober. Seems to be a little much.

But with removing water from water sprouts. Maybe I don't quite understand this. A tree will sprout different types of growth. Water sprouts are quite different from normal sucker growth. But a sucker is concidered a sprout, correct. But I wouldn't put these two types together being it is desireable to leave many suckers on branches from health growth as well as for growth of the limb. It is my understanding though that water sprout are undersirable and are to be removed. I find this most common on brad. pears.

If my reasoning or understanding is incorrect please correct me. I would like to have the correct knowledge to both serve myself and others.

 

[treeseer]

Climb, I agree with you, although suggesting that some of these changes were proposed under the influence of alcohol is just the kind of dissing to avoid when forwarding comments (I know you would not do that). There may be good reasons that we do not know.

A watersprout is an upright epicormic shoot and I agree they are usually best removed.

A sucker is a basal or root sprout and they are usually best removed.

There are many other kinds of epicormic sprouts, and many of these are best retained, temporarily or permanently.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Treeseer, your numbers don't line up with my copy either. Could you edit your post to include the original standard?

Internodal pollarding cuts will send out a flush of shoots, while a nodal cut would likely only send out one or two. This would add time to develop heads, but reduce decay down the stem, which is your point, I assume.
Aren't pollards, historically, designed to produce shoots for use as roofing material or something?
Is decay down pollard stems a big problem?

4.5.2--add "upright" or "vertical". watersprouts are NOT synonymous with "epicormics". There are many types of epicormics, some make good permanent branches, while few watersprouts do.

I started a thread about suckers here once, I agree this definition is confusing and dated.

The numbers lost me after that.

 

[Climb020]

NO offense was ment just wish I knew why they would like to put a change like that. What is the reasoning behind a change like that? Is is simply a preventative measure for accidents and possible law suits?

 

[treeseer]

NO offense was ment just wish I knew why they would like to put a change like that. What is the reasoning behind a change like that? Is is simply a preventative measure for accidents and possible law suits?

Possibly, possible also muni people would like to see this change to simplify their operations. many changes are proposed by utility interests to help justify imo unwarranted removal of valuable trees.

Mike my numbers are taken from the draft, read it and you will see. Compare it to the 2001 and you will see what changes are proposed.

 

[squisher]

Thanks for the link that clears things up a bit. With my limited experience I will probably just be more interested in following the process and seeing what changes occur but if I do have an idea I will try to keep my euc tendencies in check.

 

[Ekka]

That sounds like more specific language than we have here on topping. I'm suggesting the addition of 'often internodal" Ours talks bout cutting at a "predetermined height'--does yours? So Eric I guess my question is, why can't you cite those standards in bold print and point to violations in these trees and notify the authorities though their channels?

No talk about predetermined height.

I've notified authorities a plenty ... rarely hear back.

Now the problem Guy is that if the trees are not protected the rule doesn't apply for council intervention. It becomes a private matter between the owner and the contractor who did it... and what if the owner asked for it?

I can only fight this practice on public and protected trees.

Here's another pic where after I jumped on Logan City Council they returned and removed their topped abomination ... shows how useless these authorities are doesn't it. And that's earlier this year!

 

[treeseer]

Just so I understand...the topped tree was removed after the council became aware of the problems associated with it, right?

Was the tree replaced? Was the contractor fined, or at least disqualified from future council work? It's a Pyrrhic victory that leaves a void.

The lower 2 pics are of better maintenance leaving better trees, right?

 

[Climb020]

Picture on the left shows how the low looks with the topped tree with it. The right shows a cleaner and healthier look after the hacked tree was removed. At least this is what I gathered from looking at them.

 

[treeseer]

thanks I see that now. i hate to see a hole in that row--the topper should be replanting.

Eric, doesn't that show that the logan council was useFUL, if they removed the abomination instead of calling it research and telling you to put your camera in a place where the sun does not shine?

Did/will Logan change their ordinance to mandate compliance with AS 4373?

 

[Ekka]

Well, no-one talks to you, operation lockdown!

They dont return calls or tell you who the contractor is.

I spoke with a lady who was secretary to the guy who looks after that area. I said i was enquiring about the lack of adherance to AS4373 and wanted to speak with the chief for reasons why not and that I was writing a report for the Arborage and sending pics in to show the standard of treework by council.

I followed that up with an email with pics attached, no response, then out of the blue I drove past and it was gone.

So I can only conclude that there was discussion about it and they realised their error. I dare say the contractor would have been in the **** for it and I'm sure there were other options available, yes the tree had defects but it could have been reduced to be a safer habitat tree however it was in an undesriable spot as a habitat tree due to proximity to the road if it failed.

I would say there was easily sufficient holding wood that it wouldn't fall and it did have some hollows that parrots like.

Could have been reduced to target cuts, visited in 6 months and had any epicormics knocked off, and that's it, habitat home for birds.

 

[treeseer]

there was discussion about it and they realised their error. .

So that is a positive development. Then the tree had to be removed for political reasons. A car dealer here topped 43 trees--that case is still on the city attorney's desk, after 5 months --and they cut one to the ground after it hit the press, because they knew it was a political liability due to its visibility. It was not too much worse than the one attached.

So here the city enforced standards, levying a $57,000 fine to the tree owner. OK Eric I'll count my blessings, we are better off here. We all can make things better for the trees by highlighting the good :angel: in the standards, not by condemning the bad acts :angry2: done by others.

 

[trevmcrev]

Follow this link to a DRAFT REVISION for AS4373.

http://arboriculture.com.au/isaac/standards/DR06280Pruningofamenitytrees1.pdf

Trev

 

[treeseer]

Thanks Trev; I'm impressed. So yours are rewritten every ten tears, not five?

7.3.5 gives latitude to leave stubs when necessary on restorative work. It'd be hard to make that claim with the ficus at the harbor wharf place I think; can't imagine a reason not to go back to the node.

 

[Ekka]

Good on ya Trev, I saved that one.

Wish I had known when it was in the comment stage.

I thought they were going to have some standards for root protection zones on constructions sites but it's not in there. I think the new British Standards are going for factor 12x whatever the DBH is. So a tree of 1' dia will get 12' protection radius.

Not much different to what we got now really.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

So that is a positive development. Then the tree had to be removed for political reasons. A car dealer here topped 43 trees--that case is still on the city attorney's desk, after 5 months --and they cut one to the ground after it hit the press, because they knew it was a political liability due to its visibility. It was not too much worse than the one attached.

So here the city enforced standards, levying a $57,000 fine to the tree owner. OK Eric I'll count my blessings, we are better off here. We all can make things better for the trees by highlighting the good :angel: in the standards, not by condemning the bad acts :angry2: done by others.

The tree in your picture looks more like it was sheared than topped. The cuts are very small.