Text book pruning

[beastmaster]

I do a lot of high end pruning, I try to take out as little as possible and leave a tree that has an "improved natural look". But even then I am not doing "Text book pruning". Why? no one's going to pay you if their tree doesn't look pruned. Removing 10 or 15 percent and the average person says you didn't do anything.
Then you have damaged trees that were topped, liontailed, or over pruned in the past that have such bazaar growth you have to remove a lot of crap to find and restore a structure. Don't even get me started on those rich people who have these perfect little trees shaped like balls. Gardeners seem to be fond of them.
I detest end cuts and always try to find a lateral that I can blend in to make it look like nothing was cut.. But being a trimmer I probably alway take out a little more then I know I should to make the tree look nicer, balanced, and laced. Am I a bad trimmer for this?
Last weed I trimmed a coast live oak in front of the gift shop at the botanical gardens. I was reminded ever 10 min. it seemed, to not take out to much. Only the dead and no green. I did cut some green as there were places where the tree has been getting cut back for years, against the building and over the sidewalk. Had to remove one big branch that the UPS truck keeps hitting.
I wanted so much to shape it some(I did a little, don't tell no one)to give it a more appealing look to the eye. No home owner would be pleased with this tree I'm sure, but I spent a day and a half removing ever dead twig and its as close to text book as any Ive done, It wasn't cheap. But I walked a way thinking I could of made it look better. Damn those books anyway.View attachment 312637View attachment 312638View attachment 312639

 

[BC WetCoast]

I think it depends on the textbook and the owner. I know of municipalities that are following Gilman's central leader and wide crotch angle strategy for all their street trees regardless of species or structure as a way of reducing risk of failure (damage claims). Tends to make the trees look hacked. However, they are on a regular pruning cycle.

 

[sgreanbeans]

Beasty, sounds like you are in the same inner soul stuff any of us are. I try to do right by the tree, not the HO, and I tell them this. Most of the time, they love that, as ultimately that's what they want. Someone to care for their tree. Some don't and just want it hacked "I dont care if the thing dies, I just want it away from my Dish" How many have heard that! So I think you are spot on.

 

[treeslayer]

sadly its whatever "pruning job" the salesman/owner can sell. what the individual tree needs is the last thing considered, if at all. and only by the climber if the tree is lucky enough to get a real one...

 

[treeseer]

I think it depends on the textbook and the owner. I know of municipalities that are following Gilman's central leader and wide crotch angle strategy for all their street trees regardless of species or structure as a way of reducing risk of failure (damage claims). Tends to make the trees look hacked. However, they are on a regular pruning cycle.

So then they are hacked on a regular cycle? The "central leader for all trees" idea is horrible for some species; the CA standard is WRONG, as it makes central leaders a "shall". That part of that textbook needs to be flushed. :mad2:

Yes it depends on the objective, the job that the owner and the contracting arborist agree on. The climbing arborist sometimes can change that in the field, with the right communication. The "Only deadwood, no green" approach could be changed if someone points out the lack of safety in overextended limbs. Email them pics of signs of strain or cracks taken from within the crown, for instance.

Re the homowner/manager who does not think enough was taken out--B&A pics! https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/113373224056212084681/albums/5884961798506807313

 

[BC WetCoast]

I think their strategy is 'if we force them into this unnatural structure over the next 4 pruning cycles, then we will be set'. I think this works better if you can start when the tree is 4 years old and then prune regularily, but is more difficult if you start on a 35 year old tree.

 

[imagineero]

Geeze beast, sounds like you're just as bad as the people you're criticising ;-)

If you've been told repeatedly not to take off any green, then you admit you proceed to take off more than you know you should, and still want to keep cutting just to make the tree more appealing to look at then you're pretty much in the same boat as the people with the perfect little trees shaped like balls

trimming should always be 'as much as necessary, and as little as possible' in my book. Smallest cuts, least material removed unless there's a good reason for it, and in my mind making it 'look better' is not in the best interests of the tree. Not every tree has a perfect form, but every tree has a perfect form for its environment and location.

Shaun

 

[treeslayer]

trimming should always be 'as much as necessary, and as little as possible' in my book. Smallest cuts, least material removed unless there's a good reason for it, and in my mind making it 'look better' is not in the best interests of the tree. Not every tree has a perfect form, but every tree has a perfect form for its environment and location.

Shaun

I like the adage "pruning is like a bikini, less is better"..:msp_wink:

 

[sgreanbeans]

I think if you prune the tree right, ya don't need to do it for aesthetics, it looks good naturally.

 

[treesmith]

Only doing work that the tree needs would involve me getting really fat and only very occasionally leaving the car

 

[beastmaster]

Hardly ever in my 30 + years of doing trees has anyone wanted me to do what is recommended by tree purest. I've done jobs on historic trees where I'm only taking out 15% of live wood. But even then If the trees in front of the local court house, they want the tree to look nice. If there is a area where the tree sticks up 5 feet higher then rest the tree, and it takes away from the shape, they want you to take it down if possible those 5 feet. I am a product of my environment.
I do ornamental pruning, I know what would be best, and lots of times that would be nothing, but I get paid to make their trees look beautiful. I take out as little as possible 15 to 25 % you don't see no end cuts, and they look natural.
I get told not to take out any green on many jobs. But if a certain area is really thick compared to rest the tree it shows up like a sore thumb. So I'll feather it out to match rest the tree. I follow all the rules laid out by the standards and then some .
No one wants text book trees except botanical gardens and they'll turn a blind eye to a little selective shaping if it improves the appearance of the tree. If carefully done a little subtle pruning in the right places can enhance the look of a tree.
Most trees are way over pruned, but in a urban setting sometimes its the trees that have to sacrifice because of the desires of people. I like to think I'm pro tree and can find a method where where both the tree and the HO's are satisfied.

 

[RVALUE]

My opinion only:

Those west coast live oaks are in a category of their own, due to their age and slow recovery. They require that special attention, and not the more severe 'topping' that other oaks and etc. can survive.

Tarry on.

 

[imagineero]

Hardly ever in my 30 + years of doing trees has anyone wanted me to do what is recommended by tree purest. I've done jobs on historic trees where I'm only taking out 15% of live wood. But even then If the trees in front of the local court house, they want the tree to look nice. If there is a area where the tree sticks up 5 feet higher then rest the tree, and it takes away from the shape, they want you to take it down if possible those 5 feet. I am a product of my environment.
I do ornamental pruning, I know what would be best, and lots of times that would be nothing, but I get paid to make their trees look beautiful. I take out as little as possible 15 to 25 % you don't see no end cuts, and they look natural.
I get told not to take out any green on many jobs. But if a certain area is really thick compared to rest the tree it shows up like a sore thumb. So I'll feather it out to match rest the tree. I follow all the rules laid out by the standards and then some .
No one wants text book trees except botanical gardens and they'll turn a blind eye to a little selective shaping if it improves the appearance of the tree. If carefully done a little subtle pruning in the right places can enhance the look of a tree.
Most trees are way over pruned, but in a urban setting sometimes its the trees that have to sacrifice because of the desires of people. I like to think I'm pro tree and can find a method where where both the tree and the HO's are satisfied.

I wouldn't normally beat you up about it, but you asked the question "am I bad trimmer for doing this?" and honestly, the answer is yes. Presumably you wanted an honest answer and not just for people to pat you on the back and say 'attaboy, you're doing the right thing'. I'm not going to say that I've never done it. I started out in silviculture, trimming pines up to 40% to encourage rapid growth with minimal knots. But when it comes to urban trees, and especially mature trees, overpruning is only good when presented as an alternative to removal.

You say you take out as little as possible, but you state 15%-25%. To me, 25% is a ridiculous amount to prune out of a tree. That's getting close to butchering when we're talking about mature urban trees. The only time I've ever taken so much out of a tree is in the case of a tree in serious decline thats been neglected for years and has become dangerous, and probably ought to be removed, but the onwer wants to hang on to it for a few more years so we do what we can to make it safe knowing that it will be coming out soon. I don't know what the standards are in the states, but in and around sydney most councils allow you a maximum of 10% of foliage area within a 12 month period, and some go further and say nothing over 4" diameter. Some go further still and say nothing over 2" diameter! Obviously, mid branch cuts, spiking a prune job and topping are against the law here. Yeah we get pressure from home owners to take more off, but I stand my ground and, as often as not, they still go ahead with the job. They ask me to cut this, this, this, this, this etc... I tell them (with a laser pointer), well, you can cut this and this, or this. It's your choice. For me, I'd cut this. Next year I could cut this and this. I educate them, tell them about the law, and the life of the tree. 8 times out of 10, they'll go ahead with the job as I tell them it ought to be done. If I'd have just caved, and cut what they want, would I be doing my job?

If you were an electrician and a customer called you out to a job and asked you to wire up their house so that the stove top had live electricity on it, would you do it? no friggin' way, or you'd lose your license real quick! Can you picture this conversation?

customer "right, now what I want you to do is run live electricity to the stove top"
sparky "well, you really shouldn't do that, it'll probably kill you and it's against the law and I could get it trouble for it"
customer "well, I'm paying and that's what I want, so do it or I'll find another guy"
sparky "right you are then, I'll get on to it...."

#### no! Then why does the following conversation happen so often?

customer "right, now I want you to cut the top off that tree, and prune it back to about 50% of it's size"
'abrorist' (I use the term lightly!) "well, you really shouldn't do that, it'll probably kill the tree and it's against the law and I could get it trouble for it"
customer "well, I'm paying and that's what I want, so do it or I'll find another guy"
sparky "right you are then, I'll get on to it...."

Have the courage to put your money where your mouth is and you might be surprised. Not only do most customers agree when you stand your ground and tell them how it is, they also ask you back, year after year! That's what selling quality tree work is about. You can't have the tail wagging the dog, people call you for your expert opinion. Stop being a labourer, and start being the expert that you are.

Shaun

 

[beastmaster]

I appreciate your candor Shaun, I don't put my self out there with out reason. I know whats right, but I am a laborer. I am not self employed, but work for others, with that being said I am selective about who I work for. I may be a whore, but not a cheap whore.View attachment 313052View attachment 313053 These sycamores for example are in an area where they perform marriages. They where so heavy several large branches had broken out and they hung down to the ground impeding the catering trucks and causing security concerns. I removed maybe 30 percent. I am aware they'll grow back even thicker and quicker, but they'll have us back in two years to do them again.
Even if it had been my job, I couldn't of sold them a 10% trim and dead wood. Those trees job is to look nice for the guest, most my jobs are like that. But it does cause me some grief at times.

 

[senones]

Different species tolerate different dosages of live tissue removed. The percentages cited in the standard should most probably be taken as a rule of thumb. If I had to prune a species that I was not familiar with I wouldn't take off more than 25%, especially if I don't know how well that species compartmentalizes decay. Conversely, if dealing with a spp that I am very familiar with I would definitely take off more if it would correct a serious defect. If you are able to prune the same trees for several years, you have a unique opportunity to see exactly how the tree reacts to your pruning or pruning cuts and after a while can anticipate how that species will react in the future to what you do to it.
As a commercial Arborist I don't prune for aesthetics. I prune to mitigate risk. Too lower my clients' exposure to risk. Gilman's work teaches us to identify defects and to make corrections to try to prevent failure. Its all about keeping the tree upright with all parts attached. It is more of a physics and engineering perspective than aesthetics. You can't argue with the research. That problem is solved. We know what the best structure is to make the tree as strong as you can considering its species profile.
I cannot agree that subordination of codominant stems to develop a central leader makes the tree looked hacked. I would suggest that by lightening the dosage you could structurally prune the tree, subordinate the codoms, and still have the tree look natural when done. If the trees are being pruned annually, less dosage wouldn't be a big deal. But then again, what do I know? I am just a tree climber who reads a lot.

 

[treeseer]

Good post, but

... Its all about keeping the tree upright with all parts attached. It is more of a physics and engineering perspective than aesthetics. You can't argue with the research. That problem is solved. (!!) We know what the best structure is to make the tree as strong as you can considering its species profile.
I cannot agree that subordination of codominant stems to develop a central leader makes the tree looked hacked. I would suggest that by lightening the dosage you could structurally prune the tree, subordinate the codoms, and still have the tree look natural when done. If the trees are being pruned annually, less dosage wouldn't be a big deal. .

I wish it were that easy.

If the trees are being pruned monthly, less dosage wouldn't be a big deal.#