Does this tree look safe or needs "reduction"?

[Bodean]

Here's a maple I saw in a homeowners yard. Looks prone to failure but I don't know. I'd hate to jack it's shape. Tons of targets around. the homeowner says the tree keeps the golf balls out of her windows from the course next door.
D

 

[Dadatwins]

Looks like a typical maple, lot of crotches with included bark. Pics don't show any serious cavities or splits that I can see from here. Tree is to mature to risk removing any of the large lower leads so that would not be an option in my opinion. You could reduce the height some, but maple grows so quickly it would fill in double what you cut in a year or so. Take out some dead wood, if any, crossing branches, maybe thin out some interior and low growth. Looks like a nice tree, What does the homeowner want done with it?

 

[Bodean]

the homeowner is alittle intimidated by the size. You are correct in the absence of hollows or any irregularities for that matter. I didn't talk to the homeowner about codominate stems or included bark for that matter. I only took some photos for my own edification and to hear y'alls opinion. Though we were supposed to lite trim it. But she thought that would be too expensive. It's not a big leaf maple, I'm not sure of the species. Though that many codominate stems would warrant screams from some arborists. I'm of the nature of leave it be. Any "corrective" actions will put that tree into turbo growth. I find almost zero reason for height reduction in general apart form utility clearance. I can't stand when I see lollipops on the block.
Thank you for your response, it's just what I was looking for.
D

 

[treeseer]

the homeowner is alittle intimidated by the size. Though we were supposed to lite trim it. Any "corrective" actions will put that tree into turbo growth. I find almost zero reason for height reduction
D

If the forks look prone to splitting, a light reduction is in order. That would at the same time reduce owner's fear of size, and arborist's concern of failure from defect. looks like 1 hour's work; should be a worthwhile investment for owner.
"maple grows so quickly it would fill in double what you cut in a year or so."
Dada, Tree is mature enough that a light reduction will not spur massive sprouting. first job is to ID the species so you know what you're dealing with.

 

[fpyontek]

Bodean, you need to cable that tree. I can't really tell from Image 0138, but it looks like a 3 leader. If it is, install 3 cables in whats called a box pattern, where each leader is cabled to the one next to it. Image 0140 also looks like a V type crotch, you should also put a cable between those two branches/leaders.

You could use steel cable or try the TreeSave system as advertised in Sherrill (which I haven't tried yet).

Fred

 

[begleytree]

I was going to suggest you thin and lighten it a bit, and install cables. But, had I said that, I'd have been labeled arborphobic!
See, I had to let someone else say it first, that way, its allright.
-Ralph

 

[fpyontek]

I was going to suggest you thin and lighten it a bit, and install cables. But, had I said that, I'd have been labeled arborphobic!
See, I had to let someone else say it first, that way, its allright.
-Ralph

Sure, let me be labeled "arborphobic".

Fred

 

[skwerl]

75% of pruning sold by 'arborists' is unneccessary and hurts the trees more than it helps them. Have you seen any visual evidence in the tree of any type of structural failure in the past? How many limbs have split out and how big were they? If the answer is 'none' then you have no business topping (Guy calls it 'crown reduction') or cabling the tree.

If you're going to prune, then I'd recommend using the 'justify every cut' protocol. On healthy trees I prefer being able to 'justify every cut' by identifying dead, dying, broken or structurally unsound limbs. Healthy limbs contributing to the health of the tree are not cut (unless required for building clearance, etc.). If you've removed every bad limb out of the tree and left every good limb, and the customer or the guy next door cannot tell that the tree was trimmed, then you can consider it a compliment of the highest regard.

Keep in mind that we cannot prune a tree to health, we can only remove the bad stuff. If we cut out a bunch of strong, healthy stuff then we hurt the tree. Justify every cut.

 

[fpyontek]

...Have you seen any visual evidence in the tree of any type of structural failure in the past? How many limbs have split out and how big were they? If the answer is 'none' then you have no business topping (Guy calls it 'crown reduction') or cabling the tree.

Maybe he should wait until one of the leaders splits off the tree and falls, then do something corrective?

I always think its better to take corrective action before a tragedy occurs rather than after.

If it looks like a potential threat to life or property, and it does, correct it!

Fred

 

[Bodean]

To answer a few. The tree looks really good. No failures or ripped branches. The top looks vibrant with visible buds. Though the tree is surrounded by turf no apparent competition. Very little deadwood maybe
15-20%. The reason I posted the pics was exactly "do you do preemptive arbor strike, like immediate cabling and bracing, or wait and see, I hate topping trees for the first time". The woman has little capital so it will ultimately be a wait and see. Alot of jobs in Tiburon, Belvedere, Mill Valley and Sausalito are all re tops, year after year. It's a realty/property value thing. The house explodes in price if you can see the GG Bridge, the Bay or even San Quentin prison. It's neat to monitor a tree after you've topped it three years in a row.
D

I do believe in what Squirrel says "75% of trims are for the homeowner and not seriously for the tree". Difference exists between Tree Care and Tree Business.

 

[Bodean]

In Fact protecting the 'ViewScapes" is written into the city ordinances. Your uphill neighbor has the right to top any tree in your yard (downhill) that interferes with their view of the Bay or the prison. I suggest to plant lots of Dogwoods and Jap Maples. Low stature equals longer future. It's funny how their are tree protections in place as well as protecting the Views.
Conflict anyone?
D

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

I strongly agree with skwerl, but fpyontek makes a valid point about safety.
This tree is unfamiliar to me, being in CA, but if that maple were in WI, it would be pointless to try to trim it into a "safe" tree. That is the natural habit of maples, they grow stemmed and co-dominant, you can't change that. All you'd do is shorten it's life and make it ugly in the process. Remember, even a stump can be hazardous.
Cables, properly installed could be a cheap insurance policy, but like fertilizing, it should only be done with specific goals in mind. For example, this crotch is weak and cracked, the cable should support that.
With multi-stemmed trees, one cable can support two or three potentially bad crotches.
In this case there are five options that come to mind:
1. Cable and monitor for future needed work.
2. Do nothing
3. Complete removal.
4. Repeated crown reductions and eventual removal.
5. One time crown reduction.
I have conveniently put them in the order of my recommendation.

 

[appalachianarbo]

It's neat to monitor a tree after you've topped it three years in a row.

From the sound of it, I don't think bodean is really "justifying every cut."

Bodean, are you saying that your only two options are to cable it or top it? Why not just crown clean it and leave it? Put a cable or two in if it really needs it. Either way, don't top a tree just because the lady is a little intimidated by the size. Reassure her. I know that the word 'hack' shouldn't be used lightly around here, but come on man - topping is hack work. Didn't you say that the only justification for a "crown reduction" is for utilities?

 

[treeseer]

If the forks look prone to splitting, a light thinning near the ends is in order. That would at the same time reduce owner's fear of size, and arborist's concern of failure from defect. Picture #4 looks like a bad fork form here. Job looks like 1 hour's worth of light thinning/reduction; should be a worthwhile investment for owner.

Tie in 2/3 of the way up and use a pole pruner; easy enough if you know how to preserve the shape of the tree. mikey, your #5 is my #1; totally within ANSI standards, see 5.3.3, 5.6.2 and especially 5.6.4.1 Reduction, and very different from topping.

Yes justify every cut; lessening stress on a defect is justifiable. yes work proactively, lack of damage is no reason to do nothing. Please don't take my word for it; here's Gilman from: http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/pruning/ Reducing the canopy


Objectives: There can be several objectives of reduction pruning 1) reduce tree size; 2) reduce a portion of the tree to provide clearance from a structure; 3) reduce a portion of the canopy to **minimize risk of failure.
Properly done, this provides a more pleasing, unpruned natural look to the tree compared to topping. **Many people would not know a canopy was reduced in size following appropriate moderate canopy reduction.

Introduction: Trees sometimes grow larger than desired for aesthetic or safety considerations. These trees may interfere with overhead utility wires, grow into buildings or other trees, or become hazardous because of their size, length, or condition. **Reduction pruning is used to reduce the size of a tree by decreasing the length of one or many stems and branches.

Reduction pruning performed after the tree has become too large could require the removal of large diameter stems. The resulting wounds can be accompanied by decay, cracks, and sprout development. Therefore, **it is preferable to perform reduction before the tree has become too large for its environment. Proper reduction pruning reduces size while more-or-less maintaining a tree's form and minimizes regrowth.

Execution: Sometimes the entire canopy of a tree must be reduced in height or spread, such as for utility line clearance or to **minimize risk of failure. Portions of the canopy, such as ***individual limbs, can be reduced in order to balance the canopy or to reduce likelihood of breakage on limbs with defects such as cracks and included bark or those that have grown to become too long.***

Reduction is best accomplished by cutting limbs back to their point of origin or back to a lateral branch capable of sustaining the remaining limb and assuming apical dominance of the limb. When a branch is cut back to a lateral, no more than one-fourth of its foliage should be removed. A common rule of thumb is that the remaining lateral branch must be at least one-third the diameter of the removed portion, but **this rule can vary with species, age, climate, and the condition of the tree. Consideration must also be given to the ability of the species to sustain this type of pruning. Species that are known to decay quickly from these types of cuts should be reduction pruned more conservatively than more decay resistant species.

Bodean, post a pic of a twig and a leaf if you still don't know what it is.

Mike and Brian, perhaps you want to tell Dr. Gilman why he is wrong. I know firsthand that he is open to input from arborists in the field if they have something useful to say.

 

[Old Monkey]

Deva, welcome to one of the ongoing discussions at AS. Personally, I have no problem trimming trees for aesthetics. People want to enjoy their trees and a light thinning can make a tree more enjoyable for the customer. Your tree doesn't look especially dangerous to me. Craig (our mutual ex-boss) felt that cabling is over done and I tend to agree with him. It allows trees to get bigger and more spread out than they should get and just creates a bigger hazard later. Better to regular light pruning and weight reduction cuts. Or do nothing, that tree looks fine.

As to Mr. Appachiaarbo, BoDean is a very conscientious person. I would not be so quick to throw the "hack" word around. The San Francisco Bay Area is a unique area for tree work. The view trims can be as rude as cutting an inverted mohawk through two hundred feet of tree tops or cutting every limb on a redwood tree between two heights that blocks the bay view. There are law suits involved and a good deal of money is spent to maintain those views. Trees grow fast and some view trims need to be done yearly. Repeat toppings sounds bad if you live somewhere else, but if you work in the Bay Area you would be hard pressed to avoid them on principle alone.

 

[treeseer]

Better to regular light pruning and weight reduction cuts.

Exactly.
As tree owners age, they get concerned about size. As trees age, and as our climate worsens and storms get more severe, what were once minor defects are a greater concern.

"I was going to suggest you thin and lighten it a bit, and install cables. But, had I said that, I'd have been labeled arborphobic!"

Fred, Ralph, Arborphobia is the fear of trees, evidenced by whacky behavior like cutting down every silver maple or sweetgum or every tree with a conk...that is near people. Arboriculture is the care of trees near people, the main reason being to make them safer. Pretty clear difference, huh?

 

[begleytree]

Guy, what dictionary are you using for your terms? None of mine/my searches define words the same as you do.
example- arboriculture: the planting and care of trees. no mention of people or location
arborist-one who specializes in the planting and care of trees
arborphobic- not listed anywhere, though easy to decipher
-Ralph (trying to be on the same page as Guy)

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

He makes it up as he goes. Here's one I made up: "Guyduction" - the removal of living parts of a tree to make arborist and customer feel better.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

75% of pruning sold by 'arborists' is unneccessary and hurts the trees more than it helps them. Have you seen any visual evidence in the tree of any type of structural failure in the past? How many limbs have split out and how big were they? If the answer is 'none' then you have no business topping (Guy calls it 'crown reduction') or cabling the tree.

Where did the 75% statistic come from? CAn you post a referance to a study that has shown that?
If it is true then we should all be cutting back on our production by 75% right? You first...
All trees start out as saplings with no evidence of structural failure. IN time, things happen and some trees do develop potential for failure. It's the obligation of good arborists to understand trees and provide proper care.
There is a prinicple of tree care that says that all tree failures are predictable and preventable. Knowing that, setting up a plan to reduce those failures, if our goal is to have mature trees, is proper. Along the way there might be some "hurt" or damage. Such is life. Doing nothing in most cases will surely lead to catastrophic failure. That provides the work for the 75% that won't be done because it "harms" trees.

How can you say that preventive maintenance isn't warrented? The engine in your truck hasn,t worn out so why do you change the oil routinely?

You know full well that crown reduction isn't the same as topping. Unless you have a different definition for the terms than the ANSI A300 Standard. Have you read any of the articles that Guy has written for TCI magazine? Do you get TCI magazine, it,s free...

 

[skwerl]

Tom Dunlap-
My written words are my opinion, and I am not going to re-qualify them every frigging time I write a post. The 75% figure is what I have observed in my 20 years in the field, observing trees every single day, everywhere I go. Also looking at and evaluating jobs bid and sold by companies for which I've worked, and by evaluating jobs on which I've been asked to bid.