Fence line trees, pruning and general chat

[treeseer]

I wish I could but the photo don't lend themselves easily.

That's a shame. Maybe Eric can take a second look (and put those limbs back )

Without the support provided by the missing limb, adjacent trees and limbs will be on the “edge”, newly exposed to the forces of nature. Some of these forces are as subtle as sunshine, which can kill bark by scalding. The balance of the tree will be altered, and react to stresses in new and possibly unanticipated ways. Removing large limbs also can result in the decay and failure of the parent branch or stem. Arborists sometimes automatically recommend removal in the hopes of protecting themselves from liability, but in fact, removal of limbs can lead to an unanticipated increase in risk and liability.

Eric seriously if the neighbor was my client and that lower cut was 1% on his property, your insurance company would be getting a call.

 

[Climb020]

Eric seriously if the neighbor was my client and that lower cut was 1% on his property, your insurance company would be getting a call.

So are you saying you would rather see the tree flat sided? I did a job just last week were the whole side of the tree was cut off. The cuts where not currect but to the property line. If it was my tree I would rather them come on my property and make proper cuts then have my tree look like half a hat rack.

Also from the way the picture shows it, the tree couldn't have been pruned any less being that all the branches removed were over the roof. Sometimes it is just a lose lose situation. If you leave the tree over hanging then you cause damage to the roof with mold and the like.

 

[Bermie]

Ekka your pruning job looks done to standards...
I'm sure you are ready for a sound thrashing from the Yank crowd over your rain gutter worshiping prune.

I get asked to prune trees away from roofs all the time - especially poincianas that drop tons of tiny leaves and twigs during storms and when they drop for the winter.
In our part of the world all our drinking water comes from what falls from the sky, our architechture has evolved a unique roof and guttering system to catch the rain and channel it into a tank under the house. So we do in fact worship rain gutters!
Leaf litter clogs up the drains, causing overflow and wastage of water, or pooling in places leading to leaks. Also excess debris can get into the tank and settle to the bottom, anaerobic respiration - rot - STINKY Water, at which point you have to pump out the whole tank, clean it and pray it rains or pay to have it refilled.

So...when asked if I can just 'cut the tree so it is below the roof' I have to weigh up the tree's health and welfare vs the legitimate need to keep the roof as clear as possible. This can lead to a situation that is similar to Ekka's...the job is done to standard as far as cuts and trying to balance the tree, but more than 25% is removed and sometimes there are larger or more wounds that one would like. At all times the customer is informed and I usually ask them to call me in 4 months time to check the tree and make sure regrowth is not going in the wrong direction. If possible I try and phase the reduction over time to get the tree down where it needs to be...why don't they call me BEFORE it gets too high!!

If I refuse the job, GUARANTEED a landscape company will come along and put up a ladder and whack that tree to bits.

I have just recieved an email this week from a client whose tree I reduced before the last storm. It is a huge old poinciana, a feature of the garden, provides shade for the house BUT...they are just having too many issues with their roof, not that the tree would fall on it, its the leaves and twigs interfering with water collection, so she's asked me to come and look, can I cut it below roof level, if not, it's a complete takedown.

So in the end, what's the better recourse, educate the client, look to do phased reductions, take a bit more off than normal circumstances would warrant, and try to save a tree, or let a botch job be done and watch a tree die in shame?

BTW: in our sub tropical climate, we can push the limits a bit with reductions, always keeping in mind the mass:energy ratio

 

[Ekka]

Great replies, I dont mind, but that is one of the typical better cases here.

The large wound where a co-dominant leader was removed back to the trunk is a target cut, the alternative in this instance would have been to leave a stub which is worse.

In many fence-line prunes where it's possible we go to the target cut over the boundary providing the owner is happy with that. I rarely if ever cut as the crow flies leaving stubs.

Clearing the roof but remaining overhanging was not an option, client not allowed, so reduction not an option.

Dont know if you noticed but the fence is actually pushed out of line of the boundary, the trunks on the boundary.

This is quite a normal request here, he would have paid for the removal of the tree but the back neib didn't want it gone.

Here's a closer shot of that bottom cut.

 

[SteveBullman]

i guess when the customers paying for a job to be done you gotta do what they want hey? i mean if you dont someone else will right

 

[Buzzlightyear]

i guess when the customers paying for a job to be done you gotta do what they want hey? i mean if you dont someone else will right

No way Steve, personally my standards are to high for that, if they won't do it right i'll walk away simple as that.

 

[Ekka]

No way Steve, personally my standards are to high for that, if they won't do it right i'll walk away simple as that.

The difference between target cutting (especially fenceline trees) and topping is immensely different ... as is the difference between reduction and topping.

In this instance the customer was well within their right legally to do what they did, and the cuts were to AS 4373, and the tree is juvenile enough to take it.

So if you want to walk away from proper arb work which is legal and to standard good luck to you.

Now this scenario played out on some 200 year old grand oak with 3' dia limbs coming over the fence is essentially the same but practically totally different.

Here in lies the anomoly. Our standards dont really have a quota for pruning. And trees aren't the same nor are their aesthetics.

Also, another legal loophole.

If the neib digs in and doesn't allow you to target cut ... bypass AS4373 and cut as the crow flies leaving huge stubs everywhere .... even in the event of decline the owner is the culprit who insisted on the unorthodox pruning by not allowing target cuts and allowing his vegetation to tresspass (he could have pruned).

So, how do you stop a homeowner attacking that 200 year old oak? PROTECTION ORDERS!

That is the solution to prevent all parties from arguing and cutting. The evaluation of what's suitable for the tree and compromise between the neighbours expectations will be prescribed ... beyond that is fines and restitution.

In this instance that Tuckeroo will not decline ... it'll just be a bonzai version of what it may have been.

This is the story of fenceline trees in Brisbane.

Other councils, like the Gold Coast actually have blanket protection orders on trees over 400mm DBH ... HOWEVER, those protection orders also have a blanket exclusion on trees where the centre of the trunk is within 3m of a fenceline.

Safest rule is the one I pound day long, plant so the canopy is contained within the boundaries of your property.

 

[treeseer]

The difference between target cutting (especially fenceline trees) and topping is immensely different ... as is the difference between reduction and topping.

Is there a difference between target and reduction pruning?

Safest rule is the one I pound day long, plant so the canopy is contained within the boundaries of your property.

Keep pounding; that rule in 2006 may be ideal it is not reasonable. Small property size really limit selection. Best rule to pound is neighborly communication, so they agree on shared arboreal assets. In this case if the tree is on the line it was likely pre-existing--what's your rule on those, Mr. Frei?

The large wound where a co-dominant leader was removed back to the trunk is a target cut, the alternative in this instance would have been to leave a stub which is worse.

I don't know the species or if there were laterals or nodes with dormant buds to cut to so I don't know if this is true. I do know that nothing is worse than trunk decay.
Let's get one thing clear--a proper pruning target is one with a preformed branch protection zone. Codoms do not have these zones, so reduction/subordination--even to a small lateral-- is often proper, and removal of codoms to the origin seldom is.
There is a discussion ongoing in the ISA western chapter on proper heading--stay tuned for the winter issue for more.

Clearing the roof but remaining overhanging was not an option, client not allowed, so reduction not an option.

Client not allowed? What does that mean? Client does not understand benefits of shade etc.? I agree that air movement is needed; here we go for 4-6', 2 meters. Client ordered you to get 5 meters?
If the tree is juvenile as you say, maybe all will be well at the end. Maybe next time client will not have such irrational fear of overhang. After all most of us are not in Bermuda--where gutter cleaners must have very regular work.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the tree decayed at that bad cut after a few years and fell on his house, then the neighbor sued him and Ekka for for the loss of tree?

 

[OTG BOSTON]

I've lost count of the number of neighbor disputes I have found myself in the middle of over the years. Now if I even sense there might be a problem, I RUN away!

Like treeseer says about "pounding neighborly communication". In a perfect world this would be the best option, unfortunately people su(k. If there is a problem between neighbors add a tree to the mix and the tree loses.

If the neighbors won't talk it over like civilized people I suggest that they write a letter stating their concerns and send it through registered mail. This way if there is a problem with the tree, there is documentation to support the case.

Nice work Ekka, it looks like ya did what ya hadda do, and it looks O.K.

 

[l2edneck]

Looks good to me.

In many fence-line prunes where it's possible we go to the target cut over the boundary providing the owner is happy with that. I rarely if ever cut as the crow flies leaving stubs.

I also will do the same.Around here we have violent storms almost on a daily basis.I have had to do alot of trims identical to that one because of insurance.Now its darn near impossible to get homeowners insurance here and when you recieve a letter in the mail saying trim that tree back or your cancelled,tree health basically goes out the window.

I personally think its a good job.Been done for years.I'm also under the understanding that it is all a learning experience.Im all for the books but im wonderin where the time is found for so much studying?I barely can keep up with work,kids,daily needs and have no time to study.Treeseer are you in the field or just a lab? I've noticed yer always about what someone has done wrong yet i see no proof of the work you do? Not trying to argue just wonderin.Thx

 

[Ekka]

Before I jump into a response for Treeseer I just have to say to Mike, it would be funny! Then all can sue the govt for allowing it as a law!! That's the thing here, the fenceline disputes and tree treatments are out of whack.

Is there a difference between target and reduction pruning?

Yes of course there is, you know that. Reduction pruning is a style of pruning where you reduce the size of a tree/limb etc by cutting to (nodes for you) or other laterals.

The term target refers to the cut being made at the correct place and angle ... so in effect you can reduce a limb with target cuts. And if you do it otherwise then you'd be stubbing or flush cutting.

Keep pounding; that rule in 2006 may be ideal it is not reasonable. Small property size really limit selection. Best rule to pound is neighborly communication, so they agree on shared arboreal assets. In this case if the tree is on the line it was likely pre-existing--what's your rule on those, Mr. Frei?

well the answer to this is easy and logical.

The problem with neighbourly communication is this. Neighbours change. Landscapes change. People change. Stats say people move here every 5 years so what may be OK in the beginning has to be OK for ever? I cant see that. Frankly, I dont want trees so I'll communicate that to the neighbour ... he wants trees so there you go, a disagreement. But not really coz it's my land and my right not to have tresspassing trees so rather than spar with the neighbour I'll just cut it. And that's what happens.

With regard to pre-existing trees and significant trees etc the answer is (as stated earlier) protection orders. That way owners know the tree is not to be touched and hopefully tree loving people bought the properties.

Frankly, if you have a postage stamp sized yard and plant a species that's gonna hang over 4 fences then you need therapy. But cities need trees you say. Yep, footpaths, parks and commercial premises will have to carry the burden and citizens left to their own ... just being sensible about planting isn't that hard.

Australia is a young country, we are in the establishment phase so good rules and education now for appropriate planting will hopefully pay off down the track.

I don't know the species or if there were laterals or nodes with dormant buds to cut to so I don't know if this is true. I do know that nothing is worse than trunk decay.
Let's get one thing clear--a proper pruning target is one with a preformed branch protection zone. Codoms do not have these zones, so reduction/subordination--even to a small lateral-- is often proper, and removal of codoms to the origin seldom is.
There is a discussion ongoing in the ISA western chapter on proper heading--stay tuned for the winter issue for more.

According to the standards that is a target cut. I draw your attention to page 12 of the attached document. Although the document is draft that part has not been changed so is valid.

Also look at Page 9; 5.4 C and D ... it say's

C:- "When removing a co-dominant stem, the wound shall be made as close as possible to the trunk collar, without cutting into the collar or leaving a protruding stub."

D:- "In the absense of a trunk collar, the stem bark ridge shall be used to determine the angle of the cut when removing a co-dominant stem."

There's other references to reduction pruning to branches which are atleast 1/3 dia of the branch being cut.

But you have your node theory, that's not even 1/3 or 1/5, it's no branch or lateral! And regardless of the amount of times I've asked for graphics it is never forthcoming.

Also if you did cut to a node and it sprouted then the customer wouldn't be happy at all, he doesn't want more branches.

For your piece of mind I can tell you that the tree will wall that of easy. Now if it were a poinciana then you'd have a big hole that would seal over in about ..... 8 years. Which brings me to that old point I've brought up before ... the sealing process. The target cut has the best liklihood of sealing over.

I just wonder what'll happen when the trunk busts the fence?

Client not allowed? What does that mean? Client does not understand benefits of shade etc.? I agree that air movement is needed; here we go for 4-6', 2 meters. Client ordered you to get 5 meters?
If the tree is juvenile as you say, maybe all will be well at the end. Maybe next time client will not have such irrational fear of overhang. After all most of us are not in Bermuda--where gutter cleaners must have very regular work.

I try for the roof clearance first, then back from the roof, but this was a back to the fence. Not negotiable. And many are the same.

It's a funny thing, we are arbos and most of the time we dont work for tree lovers.

When some-one asks for the tree to be topped I ask why, they respond in most cases with an assumed fear related position ... not fact and a definate maybe that the tree will fail. But roofs, litter and fencelines are not fear, they are real and tangible and affect their lives ... the benefits of the shade etc doesn't outweigh the inconvenience of mess, gutter cleaning etc in their minds ... but it is real and you can see it.

In this instance the tree is on the western side of the house and will still cast shadow without casting debri.

I also draw your attention to the pic below, this is what happens when stubs are left. Can you spot any nodes on those stubs? And if so will they react the same?

 

[treeseer]

Eric you're right about poinciana and eucs, hard to see nodes there. not my theory--got it from Shigo who wrote "reduction cuts should be made at nodes or crotches" USA standards allow heading cuts to small laterals or buds--don't oz standards? Better change em boy.

12ed, I'm hard on Eric cuz he knows I respect him. And trees here are very different from trees in Brisbane. O and I do get in a tree now and then; see blinky's pics from yesterday in the Freezing thread. I got the white hat, natch.:jester:

"It's a funny thing, we are arbos and most of the time we dont work for tree lovers."

my perspective's skewed cuz 90% of the time I work for tree lovers or just folks who tell me to do what is right. I'm Spoiled rotten.

 

[Ekka]

It would be good to see pics of nodes ... on trees not roses.

Also pics of prune jobs that went to nodes a few years down the track.

We have reference to nodes in our standards but it's aim is at juvenile trees in the formative stage (nursery).

I read about the nodes but am sceptical. I have seen lots of different trees cut in all sorts of places and have never noticed what I would call a proper heartwood attached nodal growth. All I see is stacks of advanticious epicormic shoots hanging off a stub that's decaying.

So Guy, where are the nodes on this pic? Pssst, you didn't leave all those stubs up there did ya?

 

[treeseer]

sorry i'm so techno-impaired I cannot resize node pics to post here. :blush:

Pic in thread does not show enough detail to ID nodes.

This is a derail here anyway isn't it?

 

[Ekka]

Not really a derail .... it's about education, I link these things to my website so customers can see what goes on.

If nodes are in fact an alternative this is the place to prove it on real life scenarios ... I still get frowned on just for suggesting nodes, am yet to prove it so I remain sceptical.

 

[treeseer]

If nodes are in fact an alternative"

well they are not that often an alternative. After storm damage and in some other reduction scenarios yes.

"this is the place to prove it on real life scenarios"

well not really real life is it? Pics aren't 3D so proof is hard to establish. I been showing ppts of this for years; wish I could just post one of those.

"I still get frowned on just for suggesting nodes,"

No one in oz studies botany or reads Shigo? lemme finish this article on proper heading cuts and I'll post it here and get someone down here to help me resize pics. Sorry to leave you hanging. Now back to the roof job:

"the benefits of the shade etc doesn't outweigh the inconvenience of mess, gutter cleaning etc in their minds"

Are their minds so skewed up that you can't break through by showing them tree benefits? Hard to believe in that hot climate they're all that silly, and tree owners here are so different. Are you working as hard at selling tree value as you are at badmouthing the competition's work habits?:monkey:

"Also if you did cut to a node and it sprouted then the customer wouldn't be happy at all, he doesn't want more branches."

You got some arborphobes there, no doubt. Here they want more branches, more trees, cuz they understand the benefits and value of trees. That's where your education effort has to start.
O and no, no stubs left in that willow oak; it was a routine crown cleaning job. I attached the heading article; sorry no pics; the mags don't have pdfs in their archives.

.

 

[trevmcrev]

Knowing the tree market here, i think ekka did a good job.

I think in Australia, arboriculture as a profession is in its infancy much more so than the US. The majority of consumers here still require loads of educating as to the benefits an arborist can offer, and to the benefit of their own trees. This varies greatly with geographical and economical differences in your target clients. We work mostly in wealthier suburbs and deal with pretty aware clients. In less well off areas all they want to do is lop or remove or prune back the neighbors stuff. I try to keep away from it, educate the best you can, give the best compromise you can, and do walk away from the real idiots.

It is getting better though, 10 years ago no one knew what an Arborist was, now 1/2 our phone calls ask if we are "arbratrists" or ""arborealists" I think council permits have helped raise awareness and the odd mention on home/garden shows on TV. Still they might know they want and arbasomethingorother but getting them to do what you tell them is a whole other challange.

As for nodes, i only really would associate that being ok on very small diameter stuff, <2". Or maybe some exceptions in the case of remedial works after storm damage. Otherwise correct cuts at natural targets.

Have a look how this Golden Elm responded to this cut, i wonder if it was at a node?

Trev

 

[treeseer]

That's a beaut of a trophy there trev. No matter if it was at a node or not; the cut so big and tree so feeble it was all downhill from there.

Glad you mentioned the odd garden show and other publicity. I did an indoor seminar with 40 and an outdoor workshop for 11 today. Many times those numbers saw the notices and knew in fact that tree education does take place--that shows the value of trees right there.

You can't buy that kind of advertising.

 

[arboralliance]

Eric you're right about poinciana and eucs, hard to see nodes there. not my theory--got it from Shigo who wrote "reduction cuts should be made at nodes or crotches" USA standards allow heading cuts to small laterals or buds--don't oz standards? Better change em boy.

12ed, I'm hard on Eric cuz he knows I respect him. And trees here are very different from trees in Brisbane. O and I do get in a tree now and then; see blinky's pics from yesterday in the Freezing thread. I got the white hat, natch.:jester:

"It's a funny thing, we are arbos and most of the time we dont work for tree lovers."

my perspective's skewed cuz 90% of the time I work for tree lovers or just folks who tell me to do what is right. I'm Spoiled rotten.

"We" are the "Shigo's" of Australia, for heavens sake, I wouldnt have done that either IF IT WAS AN OPTION!! (Shigo was a brilliant man God rest his precious soul...)

Guy (treeseer), you're all for "building people up" and not constantly looking at the negative (refer to your "uplifting" of Jason-Jay and his management of the Ficus in Brisbane City, no pun intended); I have not spoken to Eric about any of these trees (he refuses to come play golf with me so I am not talking to him till he does) HOWEVER, I would imagine Erics' client in this case would have attempted to "educate" Eric on how they were gonna lop the thing all the way down to the fence line and let it re-shoot like the 6 previous "Arborists" whom had come to give quotes before had told them was the thing to do and "just like" all their relatives, neighbors and mates throughout this sun burnt land of ours; so, Eric would have spent quite some careful considerate time educating (not inundating) this "potential" client on what was best for all involved with the tree which would have "negotiated" back and forth a little until the client was "happy" not to raze the tree to the "standard" 7'...

(Take that picture and x 10, I have been asked to do the same to 120' Quercus in Victoria and nearly had to punch on with "Arborists" to get them to see the sense in not doing it... It is a constant battle, we are a people of land clearing and have been for 200+ years NON STOP!)

So, Guy, please compliment Eric on bringing around yet another fear filled citizen of this "land of the mighty LOP!" as I believe you may be out of line (no pun intended)...

Yes our laws are antiquated and based on fear, heaven help us, worse yet our federal Govt invites itself to all your Govt's punch ons, heck your senate waited patiently fifteen years for John Howard to come into governance over this little stepping stone in the pacific, we, the few true "Arborists" swelter in the sun AND the heat of the masses as they frown and laugh at our decision to lean to the green side, so please, link arms with us and help us fight the good fight and appreciate it "is" a very different little island we live on and not the toe of you know who...

(Guy, "word" still not running, gettin back soon on all that you sent, sorry...):bang: