netree Incorrect as usual, Nick.
Hey, I appreciate the baseless bashing. Always nice to get here when voicing an opinion.
netree Go back and read the question.
I re-read the original question which asked if he's an inconsiderate jerk for spiking. I was not changing the subject.
I'll start at the top, rather, the outside. The outermost layer of a tree's trunk or branch system is called phellem, produced to the outside by the phellogen zone. The phellem becomes functional upon death. The phellogen is protected by the phellem and remains living to continue to produce the bark we see. I'm taking this directly from Dr. Alex Shigo's landmark book,
A New Tree Biology.
My direct interpretation of that would lead me to believe that if the phellem layer is thick enough, spurs could be jabbed into a tree without touching the living phellogen layer (I referred to it in my inital post as cambium, bark cambium). I remember hearing John Hendricksen talk about his brother who was spiking a tree because the bark was so thick, it was standard operating procedure to do so.
So to summarize the defense of my first point, if the bark is thick enough, spurs can be used without reaching the phellogen.
netree That pertains to the safety of the climber, not what's best for the tree itself.
Yes to the first part; no to the second. We choose climbing practices based on the safety for the climber all the time. That's my point, if there is no safer way, let's not put the person in danger. I say so also from a legal defense viewpoint. What would you say to the jury if a person died removing a dangerous hanger because spurs were immediately ruled out.
JonnyHart Something tells me these guys ain't trimming trees "poorly without spikes" Nick.
People climb without friction savers all the time. People make bad cuts all the time. I make bad cuts all the time. My point is that we have armchair arborists sitting around saying that spurs are bad without looking at any exceptions. Saying topping is bad without looking at any exceptions.
Trees are living, dynamic, unique, incredible beings. I would dare make a hard and fast rule to such things. Yet, urban trees are viewed as a resource and service to people, are they not? We quantify them in terms of energy savings to buildings and pleasant patio shade. We prune to let light in so grass can grow better. Don't you think such unnecessary pruning, from the tree's perspective, as raising limbs for clearance is detrimental to the tree? Of course it is. JPS, you agreed by saying, "If you climb without gaffs and just [do] a raise and gut, then your still just a hack anyways."
So why fuss over a few wounds from a set of spurs to remove a hazardous hanger? Lions tailing, clearance pruning, sail-effect pruning, and crown reduction pruning are the major wound inflicters! Don't kid yourself! It's far easier to close over a small wound than a large wound.
I'm not advocating the use of spurs for pruning. I'm challenging this automatic spurs-out-for-all-but-removals thinking. Challenge me back, but don't bash me.
