Seeking advice for pollarded eucalyptus

[mikewhite85]

To me, this is where the slippery slope of node trimming goes bad.

It's easy for me to agree that node trimming to maintain the skeleton and dynamic mass of a storm damaged tree is the right thing to do, but these trees have been topped.

They may have hit some nodes on some of the branches, but that does not appear to have been the trimmers goal in cut placement. Granted, we don't have the before pic to make any assessment.

To me, thats a good ole round over, with all the cuts height targeted. Sure, it could have been worse. They could have taken off 100% of the foliage instead of 75%, they could have left no laterals where they left improper ones.

Saying it's not the worst option is sort of a left handed compliment, where I feel like we should be saying that what they did was not in the top 3 options.

Trimming previously hacked trees is one of the most difficult things arborists deal with, because most of our options have already been taken away and the damage has been done. But thats part of what makes things interesting, isn't it.

Well... I might not have to do any restorative pruning because, ironically, I might remove them in a few weeks so I can dig my footing for a block wall, which the roots are blocking. (I cant see any other way to lay my footing... unless she decides on a dog ear fence instead)

It's unfortunate that the HO just spent a couple grand trimming those and a few other trees and may have to have them removed anyway. I imagine it's going to be tough grinding those hard euc stumps 2 feet down for my footing.

The trees, by the way, looked great prior to being topped (about 1/3 of the height was reduced). They just needed a little deadwooding and light pruning. Incidentally, the guy not only topped them but spiked them as well.

Here is another pic of some previously topped eucs that I tried to restore. The image quality is not great. I may have lion tailed them a little as well. I guess they look relatively normal though for trees that had once been topped. You guys probably have more experience with this than me. What do you think?

Funny thing is, MOST of my pruning is topping restoration. It's unbelievable how many licensed tree services top trees out here in socal (let alone the lawn guys). It's a wonder when I see crews with beautiful trucks and chippers butchering trees to reduce height, even at commercial properties and wealthy neighborhoods. Because it's so common, everyone thinks it's normal practice.

Even tomorrow, I am removing several trees at some apartments that had been butchered maybe 10 years ago (probably to 1/2 their size) and are now so rotten that I am terrified to climb them so my client is renting a lift for me

 

[treeseer]

...about 1/3 of the height was reduced)

Let's see the tree's response before judging it.

And to all the critics, repeating--what would you have done?

How about post and pier support for the fence?

Those look like 3-4" cuts--you sure they're gonna rot that bad? I don't know eucs that well so I'm asking.

 

[outofmytree]

You'd find 35-40 foot long weakly attached secondary growth, that OOMT and others in this thread believe they can maintain safely without reduction pruning, but rather selective thinning cuts and dynamic cobra cabling?

I ask them for examples of useful dynamic cabling and get a course in some funky failsafe branch weaving course to protect kids in a skate park?

WTF?

jomoco

Honestly Jomoco, do you really read other peoples posts or do you just skim them? The answers to this post of yours are already in this thread if you are looking.

Reduce the number of leaders per tree by one third. Despite that this is contrary to conventional 15-25% for mature trees remember that this is the equivalent of CPR for the tree. Discuss the prospect of DYNAMIC cabling for these trees if it is within the clients budget. If it is not, then walk them through the more cost effective method of removing the worst trees and replanting whilst restoring the stronger specimens.

Whatever you do, please, please, please DO NOT top an E.camaldulensis above an existing obvious "topping point" The lesser of two evils is always to reduce the tree to its previous cut. Not pollarding in the correct sense of the word but 1000 times better then producing epicormic growth on top of epicormic growth and of course if it is done again... Epo on epo on epo......

Now read the above really slowly. Its ok to move your lips we cant ACTUALLY see you through the monitor thingie...

Ok. You done now?

Now as to reduction pruning? You didnt say that at all first time around that was Guy. Here is what YOU said.

If you're not going to remove them, the only responsible course of treatment is to top them again at a relatively uniform heigth of 10-12 feet above the old topping cuts.

But its ok cos you gave your topping a fancy name so it MUST be ok.

I believe the proper terminology for the third topping is tertiary growth crown restoration, rather than the second topping that I call secondary growth crown restoration.

Personally, whilst I have a great deal of respect for Guy's skills I will not be reducing a Eucalypt branch to a node anytime soon. If there is a suitable secondary branch at least 1/3 of the leaders diameter I will reduce to that. If there is nothing at all to reduce to then I will remove the tree and start over.

As to examples of installed dynamic cabling I made it quite clear to those actually reading my posts that we have a stark LACK of cabling in this state. So it would be tough to give you a photo of something we don't see much of now wouldn't it?

You may blather on about what dynamic cabling does or doesnt do in YOUR opinion but I am happy to say that some of the best arborists in Europe and Australia strongly disagree with you. Worth noting that Yale Cordage make 2 tonne, 4 tonne and 8 tonne Yale Brace (Dynamic cable) for an Australian supplier so I guess they havent heard that it is worthless crap because they give it a ten year guarantee. Quick shoot Yale an email and let them know that your superior rope knowledge has detected a flaw in their engineering and all Yale Brace should be withdrawn from the market. Here is the link so know exactly which product to tell tham to recall. http://www.atraes.com.au/search.php?mode=search&page=1

 

[treeseer]

I will not be reducing a Eucalypt branch to a node anytime soon. If there is a suitable secondary branch at least 1/3 of the leaders diameter I will reduce to that. If there is nothing at all to reduce to then I will remove the tree and start over.

Hang on there, cowboy --what if the tree owner wants to keep it?

And what science is this 1/3 rule based on?

 

[outofmytree]

Hang on there, cowboy --what if the tree owner wants to keep it?

And what science is this 1/3 rule based on?

I draw a line in the sand Guy. I will do the work I feel is within my capacity as an arborist and is in the clients and trees best interest. If there is work that is beyond me I will refer the client to a friend of mine who holds a dipArb, ISA certs and has an incredible range of skills. If they want me to top their trees despite my best explanations I show them the Yellow Pages, leave them a business card, (in case they change their mind) and bid them good day.

"Man's gotta know his limitations." Harry Callaghan AKA Dirty Harry.

The rule of reducing to a secondary branch no less than 1/3 the diameter of the branch you are working is how I was trained and reinforced both by my admittedly limited experience but also by the discussions I have had with other arbs.

 

[Boa07]

The sprouts generated by wounding are NOT a blend of epicormics and "endocormics" and somehow you just discern which is which and remove the former in this "restorative" pruning that makes TOPPING now ok, acceptable and even desirable.

Dave, I am pretty sure that is not what Guy is trying to say, and I know that is not what Gilman has written in his texts. As you know restorative work is an attempt to make the best of a flipping mess either created by the forces of nature or by poorly informed men with saws(none of those around here though!)

As for the other picture of the severely cut Eucs, as others have said very hard to know what the intention was, or if there even was a documented scope of works....even when there is, more often than not it still leaves way too much room for SNAFU rules to apply....ie reduce by no more than 30% can mean dramatically different things to the HO and to each tree company salesperson who provides them with a quote.

Many variables make the decision as when to make the corrective pruning. I can see annual inspections that Sean mentioned he intended to do

Dave the inspections are carried out by the Arb firm I did that contract climbing for, as for the arguement to prune or not to prune there is an increasing understanding here of the difference between Hazard and Risk, and an appreciation of how documented tree risk assessments can be used to guide a defensible approach to the management of risk from tree populations. As consultants we have successes and set backs through the machinations of our own court system, but on the whole I think things are much less litigious than the USA.

IMO when it comes to potential solutions to tree related issues, one size does not fit all, unless of course you happen to be selling that one size...oh but that is just too cynical.

 

[treevet]

Dave, I am pretty sure that is not what Guy is trying to say, and I know that is not what Gilman has written in his texts. As you know restorative work is an attempt to make the best of a flipping mess either created by the forces of nature or by poorly informed men with saws(none of those around here though!)

I think that is exactly what he said. He said he would like to have done that job is he was physically capable. He would feel no remorse in doing it. He could correct the outcome with "restorative pruning".

As consultants we have successes and set backs through the machinations of our own court system, but on the whole I think things are much less litigious than the USA.

The litigious aspect of our country is not all a negative that you make it appear to be. Laws or rights should not be violated or you will be dealt with (litigation). This is what defines the presence and degree of liability associated with a hazard tree.....

1. DUTY ...obligation or responsibility to care for trees

2. BREACH.....failure to act in a reasonable manner

3. CAUSE ....the breach of duty caused the injury to happen

4. HARM....injury or damage occurs (Anderson & Eaton 1986)

IMO when it comes to potential solutions to tree related issues, one size does not fit all, unless of course you happen to be selling that one size...oh but that is just too cynical.

That is why some of our standards have developed as one size fits all (topping, flush cuts, arbitrary wounding, over fertilization, spiking, etc, etc,) were becoming prevalent treatments and they were not based on proper science.

 

[Boa07]

The litigious aspect of our country is not all a negative that you make it appear to be

Dave, I am sure there are a great many positive aspects to the values and norms that have become part of legal precedent in many aspects of American life including trees and their management, but IMO I do think there are some negative aspects of that well developed legal economy...unless of course you are a lawyer.

Quote:
IMO when it comes to potential solutions to tree related issues, one size does not fit all, unless of course you happen to be selling that one size...oh but that is just too cynical.

That is why some of our standards have developed as one size fits all (topping, flush cuts, arbitrary wounding, over fertilization, spiking, etc, etc,) were becoming prevalent treatments and they were not based on proper science.

Dave I was referring to management options that do fall within the existing standards and BMPs, I don't have ANSI A300 (Part 3)-2006 in front of me but the last time I read it I'm pretty sure it does not preclude the use of dynamic systems. We certainly use it as a reference BMP document for cabling and bracing, since we currently have none of our own.

 

[outofmytree]

Some newly formed adventitious buds may form and sprout, yes. But so may some preformed dormant buds, which are anchored to the core,so the growth from them is endocormic, much more stable.

I am interested in this statement and in all honesty too lazy to do my own reading as it has been a long day. How would you tell the good from the not-so-good? Or perhaps I should say endocormic from epicormic so as not to upset the latter )).

 

[jomoco]

Dave I was referring to management options that do fall within the existing standards and BMPs, I don't have ANSI A300 (Part 3)-2006 in front of me but the last time I read it I'm pretty sure it does not preclude the use of dynamic systems. We certainly use it as a reference BMP document for cabling and bracing, since we currently have none of our own.

I've always admired Australians for their common sense and get it done attitudes.

Which leads me to ask you what sense it makes to install a structural support system into a tree that is not stronger and more robust than the tree it's interacting with?

If I rub the two together, which will fail first?

Common sense mate.

jomoco

 

[treevet]

Dave I was referring to management options that do fall within the existing standards and BMPs, I don't have ANSI A300 (Part 3)-2006 in front of me but the last time I read it I'm pretty sure it does not preclude the use of dynamic systems. We certainly use it as a reference BMP document for cabling and bracing, since we currently have none of our own.

I do have the standard in front of me and, you are correct, dynamic cable systems are not precluded but excuse the lame analogy but neither is chewing gum strewn between 2 limbs for support precluded.

Dynamic cables are not included in the ANSI standard.

I was at the Boone NC Shigo week long seminar in l993 and the guy that invented this system (or his direct agent) was there taking advantage of a captive high level audience. He was from Germany I believe. I told him what I thought of it then and I asked Al noting to him that when this system reaches the end of its "throw" does it not crush live cell tissue causing repeated injury just like a static rope would He agreed.

 

[outofmytree]

I do have the standard in front of me and, you are correct, dynamic cable systems are not precluded but excuse the lame analogy but neither is chewing gum strewn between 2 limbs for support precluded.

Dynamic cables are not included in the ANSI standard.

I was at the Boone NC Shigo week long seminar in l993 and the guy that invented this system (or his direct agent) was there taking advantage of a captive high level audience. He was from Germany I believe. I told him what I thought of it then and I asked Al noting to him that when this system reaches the end of its "throw" does it not crush live cell tissue causing repeated injury just like a static rope would He agreed.

Dave just to be clear on this, are you talking about the possibility that the cable may "choke" the limb to which it is attached after some period of time due to growth of the tree? If so, it is worth noting that, in WA at least, the standard installation taught is to allow enough slack in the system to prevent choking whilst still ensuring a limb will be "caught" should it fail.

It is also S.O.P. as I am sure it is for the static systems you install, to encourage follow up inspections every 2-3 years to ensure the tree is well maintained. One of the great benefits of dynamic cabling is that it is relatively simple to adjust the cable length and a smart installer will allow for this need by leaving usable slack at each end.

 

[Ekka]

I was at the Boone NC Shigo week long seminar in l993 and the guy that invented this system (or his direct agent) was there taking advantage of a captive high level audience. He was from Germany I believe. I told him what I thought of it then and I asked Al noting to him that when this system reaches the end of its "throw" does it not crush live cell tissue causing repeated injury just like a static rope would He agreed.

At what PSI will living tissues beneath the bark be crushed by the rope?

What is the psi exerted by the rope at end of "throw"?

Does the system have a mechanism for absorbtion of the shock reducing the impact upon the one point when reaching end of it's "throw"? ... It is not like a dog bolting down the driveway about to run out of chain with a sudden whiplash effect wrenching it's head off is it. Nor did Dan Osman have his body cells crushed when throwing himself off cliffs with dynamic rope. :monkey:

I believe these are the answers Shigo should have sought and investigated before passing a sweeping comment.

 

[treevet]

Dan probably had a lot of space to play with prior to hitting a hard surface (not interested in following your link) and taking on massive injuries. The dynamic system either allows too much movement thus ending in causing the defect to fail or the movement is stopped (abruptly) at some point in extreme conditions not allowing the movement to "get out of bounds".....or it would fail. I think you overestimate the sensitivity or adjustability of such a system that has unmeasurable variables. You have a lot of opinions from someone that has said he does no cabling. Guess it is book smarts?:monkey:

Steel cable says stop....the movement STOPS.

 

[Ekka]

You have a lot of opinions from someone that has said he does no cabling.

When did I say that?

And since that date has it changed? Oh, you wouldn't know that's right. :monkey: But you pass off opinion on a few things you know little about, like this subject.

You have poor knowledge of dyanamic systems and physics, dont even understand reaction wood, dodge the questions asked, change your opinion to suit the occasion doing more backflips than a dolphin at Seaworld.

The dynamic system either allows too much movement thus ending in causing the defect to fail or the movement is stopped (abruptly) at some point in extreme conditions not allowing the movement to "get out of bounds".....or it would fail.

Too much movement allowing the defect to fail ... really. :monkey:

and if it doesn't fail then the movement is stopped abruptly. :monkey: :monkey:

Interesting, we best tell those companies to burn their ropes then, and their shock absorbers/accessories.

 

[treevet]

When did I say that?

And since that date has it changed? Oh, you wouldn't know that's right. :monkey: But you pass off opinion on a few things you know little about, like this subject.

You have poor knowledge of dyanamic systems and physics, dont even understand reaction wood, dodge the questions asked, change your opinion to suit the occasion doing more backflips than a dolphin at Seaworld.


Too much movement allowing the defect to fail ... really. :monkey:

and if it doesn't fail then the movement is stopped abruptly. :monkey: :monkey:

Interesting, we best tell those companies to burn their ropes then, and their shock absorbers/accessories.

I'll just bet you recently got one of your 42 credits (oops....meant units...sorry... lol) on cabling. Now you are the expert. Did the prof. let you get your fat ass up a tree and try it out? The only way you gonna get up a tree these days is with a pair of spikes on, and even then......

Oh and yeah.....burn em all.

 

[jefflovstrom]

Dang Treevet, You sure know how to " Soap- Opera" a thread.
Jeff

 

[M.D. Vaden]

This post reminds me of why its nice to have enough good work coming in to avoid needing to take work that could be viewed as questionable or impractical.

So much easier to say no, and then a yes to another caller with good work.

Hedges can be an exception, but I don't go out of my way for hedges either. Turned down about half the hedge work calls last year.

 

[treevet]

And to all the critics, repeating--what would you have done?

If I understand what you are saying.....I agree, M.D.

Treeseer presses...."what would you do???"

You are called for consultation. You look at the options.....do you cable the tree over the playground? Or in the second scenario.....do you top the Euc?

What would you do (Treeseer asks) in these 2 different consultations?

How about nothing at all. 2 treatments given.....one inadvisable, or even unethical (topping)....the other one questionable at best (elastic supports).

Third option....do nothing at all and don't assume liability (for assessing and completing perceived mitigating treatment). Go do another job and let someone else assume liability for the people underneath the tree over the playground or let a removal expert step in as that is really (maybe now, maybe later) the best treatment for way too big and fragile/brittle trees over human's dwellings.

 

[jomoco]

I've gotta euc that's slated for removal that was topped about 10-12 years ago, that few arborists except me think has ever been topped. The secondary growth is about 45 feet long, and I admit that it's a beautiful euc. But the problem is it's over a twostory condo. My recommendation to remove it has been hotly debated by residents and other arborists as well who doubt the tree was ever topped.

Since I'm removing other far more hazardous secondary growth eucs on the same property tomorrow, I will take a short vid of the euc in question then, and post it for my Australian counterparts to comment on and give an opinion as to whether I will be proved right or wrong about it being a topped tree?

Of course I intend to forensically prove it's been topped by ripping the pertinent trunk section and exposing the old topping cut hidden within.

I'll post the vid in this thread tomorrow, but will start a new thread when I take the tree down and rip the trunk to determine it's weak secondary growth faults.

jomoco