defensiblespace
ArboristSite Operative
I recently read an article in the August 2012 Arborist News about the differences between top down and bottom up removals. The conclusion of the article was that the branches on a tree dampen the vibration through the trunk, reducing the risk of failure in trees that have structural defects. I decided to put this idea of top down removals to use, and in the meantime, became more proficient at it and found other uses for top down as well.
This week I removed a lodgepole pine that had a squirrel nest in it about halfway up. This is a pretty good indication that there is some advanced decay in the tree. The tree also had a slight lean towards the house it was up against. I decided on a top down removal for 2 reasons. The first being that there was decay in the tree and climbing past it would put me at risk. Having the branches on the tree would help reduce the vibration in the tree, therefore reducing its risk of failure. The second reason was that with the tree being up against the house, I would not have to rig and lower the branches that were growing over the structure. I climbed up the tree leap frogging the branches using a 2 in 1 lanyard. I had to go fairly high in the tree due to a small drop zone. I tied a bull line to the top, lowered a few feet, and had my groundies pull as I was finishing the back cut. The top came out and landed where I wanted and the vibration in the tree was minimal. View attachment 301420
Attached is a picture of the aforementioned tree after my groundie made the bottom cut. You can see the decay.
I will definitely be doing top down removals when the situation applies from now on. Anybody else out there doing these in trees with defects or to eliminate the need to rig and lower branches?
This week I removed a lodgepole pine that had a squirrel nest in it about halfway up. This is a pretty good indication that there is some advanced decay in the tree. The tree also had a slight lean towards the house it was up against. I decided on a top down removal for 2 reasons. The first being that there was decay in the tree and climbing past it would put me at risk. Having the branches on the tree would help reduce the vibration in the tree, therefore reducing its risk of failure. The second reason was that with the tree being up against the house, I would not have to rig and lower the branches that were growing over the structure. I climbed up the tree leap frogging the branches using a 2 in 1 lanyard. I had to go fairly high in the tree due to a small drop zone. I tied a bull line to the top, lowered a few feet, and had my groundies pull as I was finishing the back cut. The top came out and landed where I wanted and the vibration in the tree was minimal. View attachment 301420
Attached is a picture of the aforementioned tree after my groundie made the bottom cut. You can see the decay.
I will definitely be doing top down removals when the situation applies from now on. Anybody else out there doing these in trees with defects or to eliminate the need to rig and lower branches?