# Topping black locust



## dan barringer (Mar 9, 2007)

I have 20 or so tall (75'-90') black locust next to my garage. One snapped off about 10 feet up last summer and I'm nervous about the others. I know topping is bad but dont want to completely cut them down. what will happen if i cut 30' off?


----------



## OTG BOSTON (Mar 9, 2007)

*bad things*

You'd have more of an issue a few years from now.


----------



## ddhlakebound (Mar 9, 2007)

dan barringer said:


> I have 20 or so tall (75'-90') black locust next to my garage. One snapped off about 10 feet up last summer and I'm nervous about the others. I know topping is bad but dont want to completely cut them down. what will happen if i cut 30' off?



You will effectively ruin your trees. They will sprout a whole bunch of fast growing, poorly attached water sprouts. In 5-8 years you will have nearly the same mass of wood above your garage, but it will be weaker, poorly attached wood. If they are topped, your time/expense in future maintenance will be significant. 

Your potential for damage will be higher in wind or ice events. 

Your trees will be UGLY. 

If you don't want to remove them, but want to feel a higher level of saftey from these trees, get an arborist on site, and have them evaluated. And not just from the ground. Problem trees could be discovered before a failure, and your conifdence in them will almost certainly improve. 

They can be crown reduction pruned without having them topped. This will lessen wind loading, and provide less area for ice/snow to adhere to. Safer, still beautiful, natural looking trees. 

If you feel there's to much risk to accept, I'd encourage you to take them out AND replant new trees of better placement/species instead of topping. This process could even be done incrementally over a few years, planting replacement trees now, and giving them some time to mature before you begin removing the old ones. 

I think many unknowing homeowners have their trees topped because they see other people have it done, with the idea that less tree is less liability, when this simply isn't true. Help break the cycle please.


----------



## jmack (Mar 9, 2007)

dan barringer said:


> I have 20 or so tall (75'-90') black locust next to my garage. One snapped off about 10 feet up last summer and I'm nervous about the others. I know topping is bad but dont want to completely cut them down. what will happen if i cut 30' off?



as stated you will have more problems, consider removing or getting a certified licensed arborist to see if its worth pruning to save the tree and to reduce your hazard


----------



## treeseer (Mar 10, 2007)

Welcome, Dan.

ddh was right about crown reduction. the arborist looks for a "tree within a tree", a new framework to leave after pruning. Key is to locate what can be the new top of this excurrent tree and go from there.
You can post pictures here for comment, but there' no replacement for a good arborist on site. How many certified arborists are in your local phone book?


----------



## radami1 (Aug 5, 2012)

*I have problems with this.*

I have a couple of locust trees. I have problems in wind storms and electric storms. The one behind my garage was struck by lightning several years ago. The trimmer said he had to top it and it grew fine after that. We have almost a dozen trees of significant size and have them trimmed every 3-5 yrs and we are beginning to feel very vulnerable. The trees are getting very tall (60+ft) and the trimmers keep cutting off the bottom branches and they grow higher and higher. I focus on the locusts because they give the most problems. We live on a 1/4 acre lot in an upscale older suburb of Chicago. One of the locusts has started to drop branches from high up. It seems healthy with no infestations as attested to by arborists and trimmers. I would prefer that it be shaped to a lower height, 30-40 ft so that branches would not be so damaging when they fall. I get the same theory about topping the trees from all the trimmers and arborists but when the utilities send their trimmers to trim the trees in the electrical easement area, they regularly top the trees and it seems to do no damage and they do it without any artful shaping but the trees grow well in those areas. They are kept short and do no significant damage. The locust trees on the other hand have come within inches of dropping heavy limbs on the neighbor's vehicles. If we get them trimmed every 3-5 years, why not keep them shorter and of a less damaging height? If the easement trimmers sent by the electric companies top trees as a matter of course, why not do it in the other areas? After all, they have more to lose from tree damage than anyone.


----------



## Rickytree (Aug 5, 2012)

radami1 said:


> I have a couple of locust trees. I have problems in wind storms and electric storms. The one behind my garage was struck by lightning several years ago. The trimmer said he had to top it and it grew fine after that. We have almost a dozen trees of significant size and have them trimmed every 3-5 yrs and we are beginning to feel very vulnerable. The trees are getting very tall (60+ft) and the trimmers keep cutting off the bottom branches and they grow higher and higher. I focus on the locusts because they give the most problems. We live on a 1/4 acre lot in an upscale older suburb of Chicago. One of the locusts has started to drop branches from high up. It seems healthy with no infestations as attested to by arborists and trimmers. I would prefer that it be shaped to a lower height, 30-40 ft so that branches would not be so damaging when they fall. I get the same theory about topping the trees from all the trimmers and arborists but when the utilities send their trimmers to trim the trees in the electrical easement area, they regularly top the trees and it seems to do no damage and they do it without any artful shaping but the trees grow well in those areas. They are kept short and do no significant damage. The locust trees on the other hand have come within inches of dropping heavy limbs on the neighbor's vehicles. If we get them trimmed every 3-5 years, why not keep them shorter and of a less damaging height? If the easement trimmers sent by the electric companies top trees as a matter of course, why not do it in the other areas? After all, they have more to lose from tree damage than anyone.



I believe the home owner has more to lose. by the electric companies point of view it takes alot of money to trim or take down trees and nothing to leave them alone. Crown reduction should be done to a 1/3 size. This means if you cut off a branch 6 inches you should cut it back to 2 inches and so on. If branches are heavy they should be thinned out and deadwood removed, perhaps some cables. It all depends on what the tree gives you. Benefits or liabilities. Trees not only produce shade, they also add to the landscape increasing the properties worth. but this also depends on the trees health and species. Hope this helps.


----------



## Rickytree (Aug 5, 2012)

dan barringer said:


> I have 20 or so tall (75'-90') black locust next to my garage. One snapped off about 10 feet up last summer and I'm nervous about the others. I know topping is bad but dont want to completely cut them down. what will happen if i cut 30' off?



Are the trees close enough to cable together perhaps? Sounds like the trees should be thinned so failure from the main stem should not happen. Are you in an area for high winds? are the trees protected from direct wind and are they the tallest trees in the area?


----------



## radami1 (Aug 5, 2012)

Rickytree said:


> I believe the home owner has more to lose. by the electric companies point of view it takes alot of money to trim or take down trees and nothing to leave them alone. Crown reduction should be done to a 1/3 size. This means if you cut off a branch 6 inches you should cut it back to 2 inches and so on. If branches are heavy they should be thinned out and deadwood removed, perhaps some cables. It all depends on what the tree gives you. Benefits or liabilities. Trees not only produce shade, they also add to the landscape increasing the properties worth. but this also depends on the trees health and species. Hope this helps.



Sorry! I do not understand reply. "Has more to lose". More than what by what. This has no meaning unless I assume I know what you are talking about. 

I know the utilities spend money for trimmers. I know they want to minimize costs. They are trying to spend as little as possible on power outages. If they do not trim, they will have more outages. They need to keep branches away from wires And they do it the most efficient way possible. Crown reduction would be great. It is just that I am not sure what the responder means again. Does he mean that if the tree is now 60 feet tall, the new height will be 20? Probably referring to end branches only which would mean that the new height would be nore like 59 feet tall. but it is not clear form the explanation.

I have been experiencing the benefits of trees for the last 35 years. But now I am worried about the liability. I would like to minimize the risk associated with trees while still enjoying the benefits. I am willing to pay but these arborists seem to want to maximize their revenue without giving me any reduction in my liability potential.


----------



## tramp bushler (Aug 6, 2012)

Radimi 1 ; welcome to Arborist Site.
Can you post pics of your trees. ?


----------



## no tree to big (Aug 6, 2012)

radami1 said:


> Sorry! I do not understand reply. "Has more to lose". More than what by what. This has no meaning unless I assume I know what you are talking about.
> 
> I know the utilities spend money for trimmers. I know they want to minimize costs. They are trying to spend as little as possible on power outages. If they do not trim, they will have more outages. They need to keep branches away from wires And they do it the most efficient way possible. Crown reduction would be great. It is just that I am not sure what the responder means again. Does he mean that if the tree is now 60 feet tall, the new height will be 20? Probably referring to end branches only which would mean that the new height would be nore like 59 feet tall. but it is not clear form the explanation.
> 
> I have been experiencing the benefits of trees for the last 35 years. But now I am worried about the liability. I would like to minimize the risk associated with trees while still enjoying the benefits. I am willing to pay but these arborists seem to want to maximize their revenue without giving me any reduction in my liability potential.




HI, 

I'm from the Chicago area myself what suburb are you in? maybe I could do a consult with you on site I'm no certified arborist but I do know how to properly trim a tree... let me know

sounds like the co is taking the easy way out to trim the trees, so they don't have to do as much up high.


topping trees is bad there is really no argument to it. Have you seen a topped tree go wild? I should start taking pics of some of the trees we do. they are not pretty and very unsafe after years of letting the aftermath grow not to mention it is much more difficult to remove some of them after a while, real long skinny suckers are not user friendly!

in regards to the power co topping yes they do it, why because they don't care what the tree looks like they just need to protect there lines and they go down the lines every couple years cutting back all the sucker growth


----------



## sgreanbeans (Aug 7, 2012)

no tree to big said:


> HI,
> 
> 
> in regards to the power co topping yes they do it, why because they don't care what the tree looks like they just need to protect there lines and they go down the lines every couple years cutting back all the sucker growth



The power company guys are not into tree care, like NTTB said, they don't care about the tree, just the line. They are not in the same line of work as us, related but def not the same. Some of the work they do here is absolutely horrible, however, they have a mission to do, keeping the lights on for that old lady who needs power for her respirator or the mom who has a sick kid who needs a pump to stay alive. Their work sucks for the most part, some guys will try and do it right, but most line guys are just there for the check, could care less about the tree, if they find something better they are gone in a second. What really sucks are the ones who do side work, they apply the same standard, half ass tree work. 

Dont top your tree, have someone prune it...........properly. Seems extreme lion tailing is the new fad around here.


----------



## beastmaster (Aug 7, 2012)

There are way's to reduce ht. besides topping. I doubt you'll get a large reduction in height though, but removal of any dead or compermised branches, along with enough trimming to lessing the trees profile to the wind. Maybe start reducing the over all height a little each trim job or couple years. That a lone would reduce your liability a great deal. A good climbing Arborist could assess the tree for potential problems and remove or correct them as needed.
Without an knowledgeable person to evaluate your trees, There is no way to know if their ticking time bombs, or just big, nice safe trees your worrying about for nothing. Get some piece of mind and have them check out by a known tree expert in your area.


----------



## Rftreeman (Aug 10, 2012)

If the height of your trees scare you and you're not afraid to spend money then have them removed and replaced with species that doesn't mature at a height that you will be concerned about later on, no sense spending money every 3 to 5 years on something that will eventually need removed anyway..

on another note, I worked many years as a line clearance foreman and I can tell you that 99.9% of the time if a tree was topped it was because there was no permission to remove it meaning the property owner didn't want them to remove it, go out in the country and find me some topped trees under a power line in the middle of nowhere...bet you can't..and I did care about the results and always pushed for removal instead of topping...

everyone talks crap about the utility guys and most of the time the ones talking have no clue why it's done the way it is...if they don't maintain the power they get fined, if they don't maintain the ROW and someone gets hurt or killed by the power lines they get fined or worst, ever seen what happens to a kids feet when he climbs a tree and gets in the lines...I didn't think so, well, I have and it ain't pretty..


----------



## daytondedrick (Aug 20, 2012)

*Ouch*

Careful topping them BL's... they split!!!! 





Rftreeman said:


> If the height of your trees scare you and you're not afraid to spend money then have them removed and replaced with species that doesn't mature at a height that you will be concerned about later on, no sense spending money every 3 to 5 years on something that will eventually need removed anyway..
> 
> on another note, I worked many years as a line clearance foreman and I can tell you that 99.9% of the time if a tree was topped it was because there was no permission to remove it meaning the property owner didn't want them to remove it, go out in the country and find me some topped trees under a power line in the middle of nowhere...bet you can't..and I did care about the results and always pushed for removal instead of topping...
> 
> everyone talks crap about the utility guys and most of the time the ones talking have no clue why it's done the way it is...if they don't maintain the power they get fined, if they don't maintain the ROW and someone gets hurt or killed by the power lines they get fined or worst, ever seen what happens to a kids feet when he climbs a tree and gets in the lines...I didn't think so, well, I have and it ain't pretty..


----------

