# Fence line trees, pruning and general chat



## Ekka (Sep 14, 2006)

Well

I had a good laugh yesterday.

Arboralliance and I went to have a look at a job.

You all know my views on fenceline trees, topping, and how the majority of pruning bids here is usually those things.

So, we rock up to the bid and bugger me, guess what, this is what we saw .... I laughed.

Then the neighbour wanted his trees topped (inc a palm!!) for a view of the city. 

Well, ole Arboralliance thought i was kidding till he saw what goes on.

I've put a red line on the fenceline. Also, look how much crap is already in the empty pool. Also the tree is some BS foambark tree which the builder told us gives you a rash ... some investigation in my bok said wear gloves, leaves a rash! So, there you go.

My point is clear, do not plant trees where the canopy will go further than your boundary, especially if it's some allergy rash inflicting POS.

Oh, and guess what we did today?

Took down 2 neighbours trees of a customer, poisoned the stumps coz I sold that over a fenceline prune on 2 trees. Tresspassers will be dealt with permanently.

Heck, I even had my back neighbour cut his banana bushes away from the fence, they were dropping leaves on top of my pool out house thingy!


----------



## treeseer (Sep 14, 2006)

Ekka said:


> My point is clear, do not plant trees where the canopy will go further than your boundary,



Have some consderation, yes, but it's nuts to say the canopy should never overspread a line. Neighbor has the right to prune, no big fuss to put on gloves.

No one in Oz has heard of pool covers?


----------



## l2edneck (Sep 14, 2006)

*Hmmmmmmmmm................*

LINE CUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

haha i hate em too but what ya gonna do

They not only buy the land the house is on but also the sky straight up.Thats what i tell em.If the neighbor wants it pruned correctly tell him to call b4 i work for the other guy and we "will try" to work something out if not.Hackama Hackama.

Im all about savin some trees but a mans family gotta eat.


----------



## Ekka (Sep 14, 2006)

Pool covers!

I want to see nice clear sparkling water no faded bubble plastic.

I want to just jump in not roll up some plastic cover.

Indeed, once again I have to be inconvenienced by some tree that isn't mine.





Had an elderly customer the other day who's a little ill ask for some fenceline work.

The neighbour had decided to plant (a few years ago) a nice murraya hedge along the side fence. Now that block next door was higher and the soil level at the top of the retaining wall was above head height.

Now this old guy had been keeping this 12' high hedge (actually 20' high from his side) maintained with a pole lopper clipping singular pieces with each cut ... friggin time consuming.

The neighbour wanted it high and only trimmed his side, the top was wide and wooly hanging way over his side.

He had got too old now to trim it and asked if we could do it ... nah, not my gig, be a ladder job and the top, forget it.

So now he has to incur expenses needlessly due to his lovely neighbour and hopefully have some-one do it on A-frame ladders or painters planks/tressels.

I suggested he see a lawyer and have a private nuisance letter drafted forcing his neighbour to maintain or remove the stinking hedge.

Once again, the victim cops the arrogance and stress.

I see more and more of these solicitor letters.

When my neighbour had a wattle dropping heaps of crud in our pool I removed it. Now if he refused i would have quantified $'s as to what it was costing me in time and money to keep my place clean, multiplied that out by tenure and gone to court for compensation. Yes, he can keep his tree, and yes he can pay for my inconvenience.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 14, 2006)

Anybody else have a copy of that book "Arboriculture and the Law" ?

There's a section in there on the property line trees.


----------



## treeseer (Sep 14, 2006)

M.D. Vaden said:


> Anybody else have a copy of that book "Arboriculture and the Law" ?There's a section in there on the property line trees.


Yeah but no cases in Oz so not relevant to whacking fanatics like Ekka. I never heard such whining about the trouble to share a plant. beeyotch!:censored: 

btw Lew Bloch is writing a second edition of Tree Law Cases in the USA (which also has a boundary line section) If anyone knows of a case that has been adjudicated, drop him a line.


----------



## John464 (Sep 14, 2006)

have never trimmed as severe as that photo is suggesting(taking half the side out), but have trimmed many of overhang on property lines from neighbor's tree or shared tree on property line


On a few occassions there has been altercations between neighbor's with me smack in the middle of it. The cops have arrived, the job gets delayed by an hour or so, everyone is pissed off and the cop has to call headquaters cause they usually dont know what the law states. I surely do, but the home owners usually say something to the effect of "that is my tree, I'm calling the cops.... I will have you in court" The cop then finds out, an hour later from his sergeant we are well within legal limitations and we are allowed to continue work. But talk about a hassle! 

Does anyone have that law handbook or know where I could get one. It may save us some down time and ease the pissing match.


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Sep 14, 2006)

*How much can a tree of that size bend?*


----------



## treeseer (Sep 14, 2006)

Arboriculture & the Law
Your Price: $47.95

Arboriculture & the Law Workbook
Your Price: $7.00

Tree Law Cases in the USA
Your Price: $59.95

at http://secure.isa-arbor.com/store/search.aspx If you're not an isa member pm me about getting em at member price

Mario, why you wanna bend that tree?


----------



## Ekka (Sep 15, 2006)

Guy

It would be good to see some court cases here but I haven't heard of any.

There are times when the tree is protected though, a dont touch. 

Hey, I grew a passionfruit vine on my fence and I asked the neighbour, he was happy, the deal is whatever is on his side he eats ... if he can beat his dog to it.


----------



## Ekka (Sep 29, 2006)

Some good info running on this thread P3

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?p=487816&posted=1#post487816

And now, just to settle the score on these tresspassing trees which have been thrust onto "victims" here's the law.

http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/gateway.asp?c=legalinfo


Due to the way the website is set up you have to follow in this order. Left hand side near top in blue text click on 


*Civil Law* then in green text
*Land* then in green text
*Trees and Plants*

_*Extract for those unable to follow.*_

_Overhanging branches and roots constitute a legal nuisance. The owner of the land on which the plant grows is liable for damage caused. Tenants are not usually liable unless they have planted the plant.

A neighbour affected can raise the matter with the neighbour directly

seek assistance for mediation from the Dispute Resolution Centres 

abate the nuisance by cutting off overhanging branches and digging up roots on their property as long as they take care not to cause unnecessary damage to the plant. The overhanging branches and fruit belong to the owner of the tree, they may be returned to the owner or, with the owner's permission, disposed of. Unless the neighbour agrees to pay the cost of removal beforehand, it is necessary to take court action to recover any cost and legal advice should be obtained 

commence court proceedings for damages or an injunction, and legal advice should be obtained. 

A tree owner may also be liable under the ordinary principles of negligence. 

FruitBelongs to the owner of the tree or plant on which it grows. _


Fence line trees are the cause of many disputes, and even council gets caught up in the red tape of many laws. The above over rides local law as is a state law, however if the tree is protected then it's another kettle of fish but the responsibility is still on the trunk owner.

I have seen too many lawyers letters getting the trunk owner to prune or remove the tree.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Sep 29, 2006)

John464 said:


> On a few occassions there has been altercations between neighbor's with me smack in the middle of it. The cops have arrived, the job gets delayed by an hour or so, everyone is pissed off and the cop has to call headquaters cause they usually dont know what the law states. I surely do, but the home owners usually say something to the effect of "that is my tree, I'm calling the cops.... I will have you in court" The cop then finds out, an hour later from his sergeant we are well within legal limitations and we are allowed to continue work. But talk about a hassle!



Case law does not help in that situation. What you need is a copy of the pertinant ordiance for the jurisdiction you are in.

Case law is for courtrooms, cops deal with statutes and ordinances.

One thing to be wary about is that there is prescidance for you incuring liability if your actions cause failure of the tree.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 1, 2006)

How much air and sky does the homeowner own? 
Jeff Lovstrom


----------



## Ekka (Oct 1, 2006)

As the crow flies from the fenceline directly upwards = infinity.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Oct 1, 2006)

Not in California, USA! That is just stupid. Homeowners do not own the sky above their property! Hey, that plane is tresspassing!
Jeff Lovstrom


----------



## ddhlakebound (Oct 2, 2006)

jefflovstrom said:


> Not in California, USA! That is just stupid. Homeowners do not own the sky above their property! Hey, that plane is tresspassing!
> Jeff Lovstrom



Sure they do......the FAA has just got a really big easement.


----------



## Ekka (Oct 2, 2006)

But if that plane's tail was still grounded in your neighbours yard it would be similar to a tree and considered tresspassing.

The logical answer would be to the height of the tree.


----------



## Ekka (Oct 26, 2006)

Here's some pics of a fenceline and over the roof job I did today.

The back neibs Tuckeroo was hard up on the fence and over the roof over the customers home. We cut to standard and took it back off the roof and close enough to the fencline whilst trying to keep it's form.

The 2 shots are from 2 different angles, we also did the purple flowering Jacaranda next to it but that was only minor stuff so not worth taking a pic.


----------



## Munkee feet (Oct 26, 2006)

I agree with TreeCo...work looks to standard and I hate those type of customers...but I also feel if they are going to pay somebody to do the job...it might as well be me  

When I look at those pics...I also think I should be documenting my work...putting together a portfolio...that is two A+'s


----------



## treeseer (Oct 26, 2006)

So Ekka it looks like when you are done slaying palms, you mutilate hardwoods. If that fence is the line, you trespassed with that lower cut, which is certain to rot the trunk and likely to shorten the sage useful life of that tree. No way did you have to go that hard, and no way is it to usa standards:

5.5.3 says no more than 25%

5.6.4.1 says you must consider species toerance. No species I know can tolerate a cut like that big lower one. That lower branch did not threaten the house. You could have made smaller cuts further out and achieved your client's goals of clearing the roof, minimizing shade and litter, or whatever.

Dan can you do that black line magic to show our friend the difference between proper reduction and needless damage?


----------



## treeseer (Oct 26, 2006)

TreeCo said:


> I wish I could but the photo don't lend themselves easily.


That's a shame. Maybe Eric can take a second look (and put those limbs back  )

Without the support provided by the missing limb, adjacent trees and limbs will be on the “edge”, newly exposed to the forces of nature. Some of these forces are as subtle as sunshine, which can kill bark by scalding. The balance of the tree will be altered, and react to stresses in new and possibly unanticipated ways. Removing large limbs also can result in the decay and failure of the parent branch or stem. Arborists sometimes automatically recommend removal in the hopes of protecting themselves from liability, but in fact, removal of limbs can lead to an unanticipated increase in risk and liability.

Eric seriously if the neighbor was my client and that lower cut was 1% on his property, your insurance company would be getting a call.


----------



## Climb020 (Oct 26, 2006)

treeseer said:


> Eric seriously if the neighbor was my client and that lower cut was 1% on his property, your insurance company would be getting a call.



So are you saying you would rather see the tree flat sided? I did a job just last week were the whole side of the tree was cut off. The cuts where not currect but to the property line. If it was my tree I would rather them come on my property and make proper cuts then have my tree look like half a hat rack. 

Also from the way the picture shows it, the tree couldn't have been pruned any less being that all the branches removed were over the roof. Sometimes it is just a lose lose situation. If you leave the tree over hanging then you cause damage to the roof with mold and the like.


----------



## Bermie (Oct 26, 2006)

TreeCo said:


> Ekka your pruning job looks done to standards...
> I'm sure you are ready for a sound thrashing from the Yank crowd over your rain gutter worshiping prune.



I get asked to prune trees away from roofs all the time - especially poincianas that drop tons of tiny leaves and twigs during storms and when they drop for the winter. 
In our part of the world all our drinking water comes from what falls from the sky, our architechture has evolved a unique roof and guttering system to catch the rain and channel it into a tank under the house. So we do in fact worship rain gutters! 
Leaf litter clogs up the drains, causing overflow and wastage of water, or pooling in places leading to leaks. Also excess debris can get into the tank and settle to the bottom, anaerobic respiration - rot - STINKY Water, at which point you have to pump out the whole tank, clean it and pray it rains or pay to have it refilled.

So...when asked if I can just 'cut the tree so it is below the roof' I have to weigh up the tree's health and welfare vs the legitimate need to keep the roof as clear as possible. This can lead to a situation that is similar to Ekka's...the job is done to standard as far as cuts and trying to balance the tree, but more than 25% is removed and sometimes there are larger or more wounds that one would like. At all times the customer is informed and I usually ask them to call me in 4 months time to check the tree and make sure regrowth is not going in the wrong direction. If possible I try and phase the reduction over time to get the tree down where it needs to be...why don't they call me BEFORE it gets too high!!

If I refuse the job, GUARANTEED a landscape company will come along and put up a ladder and whack that tree to bits.

I have just recieved an email this week from a client whose tree I reduced before the last storm. It is a huge old poinciana, a feature of the garden, provides shade for the house BUT...they are just having too many issues with their roof, not that the tree would fall on it, its the leaves and twigs interfering with water collection, so she's asked me to come and look, can I cut it below roof level, if not, it's a complete takedown.

So in the end, what's the better recourse, educate the client, look to do phased reductions, take a bit more off than normal circumstances would warrant, and try to save a tree, or let a botch job be done and watch a tree die in shame? 

BTW: in our sub tropical climate, we can push the limits a bit with reductions, always keeping in mind the mass:energy ratio


----------



## Ekka (Oct 26, 2006)

Great replies, I dont mind, but that is one of the typical better cases here.

The large wound where a co-dominant leader was removed back to the trunk is a target cut, the alternative in this instance would have been to leave a stub which is worse.

In many fence-line prunes where it's possible we go to the target cut over the boundary providing the owner is happy with that. I rarely if ever cut as the crow flies leaving stubs.

Clearing the roof but remaining overhanging was not an option, client not allowed, so reduction not an option.

Dont know if you noticed but the fence is actually pushed out of line of the boundary, the trunks on the boundary.

This is quite a normal request here, he would have paid for the removal of the tree but the back neib didn't want it gone.

Here's a closer shot of that bottom cut.


----------



## SteveBullman (Oct 26, 2006)

i guess when the customers paying for a job to be done you gotta do what they want hey? i mean if you dont someone else will right


----------



## Buzzlightyear (Oct 26, 2006)

stephenbullman said:


> i guess when the customers paying for a job to be done you gotta do what they want hey? i mean if you dont someone else will right



No way Steve, personally my standards are to high for that, if they won't do it right i'll walk away simple as that.


----------



## Ekka (Oct 27, 2006)

Buzzlightyear said:


> No way Steve, personally my standards are to high for that, if they won't do it right i'll walk away simple as that.



The difference between target cutting (especially fenceline trees) and topping is immensely different ... as is the difference between reduction and topping.

In this instance the customer was well within their right legally to do what they did, and the cuts were to AS 4373, and the tree is juvenile enough to take it.

So if you want to walk away from proper arb work which is legal and to standard good luck to you.

Now this scenario played out on some 200 year old grand oak with 3' dia limbs coming over the fence is essentially the same but practically totally different. 

Here in lies the anomoly. Our standards dont really have a quota for pruning. And trees aren't the same nor are their aesthetics.

Also, another legal loophole.

If the neib digs in and doesn't allow you to target cut ... bypass AS4373 and cut as the crow flies leaving huge stubs everywhere .... even in the event of decline the owner is the culprit who insisted on the unorthodox pruning by not allowing target cuts and allowing his vegetation to tresspass (he could have pruned).

So, how do you stop a homeowner attacking that 200 year old oak? *PROTECTION ORDERS!*

That is the solution to prevent all parties from arguing and cutting. The evaluation of what's suitable for the tree and compromise between the neighbours expectations will be prescribed ... beyond that is fines and restitution.

In this instance that Tuckeroo will not decline ... it'll just be a bonzai version of what it may have been.

This is the story of fenceline trees in Brisbane.

Other councils, like the Gold Coast actually have blanket protection orders on trees over 400mm DBH ... HOWEVER, those protection orders also have a blanket exclusion on trees where the centre of the trunk is within 3m of a fenceline.

Safest rule is the one I pound day long, plant so the canopy is contained within the boundaries of your property.


----------



## treeseer (Oct 27, 2006)

Ekka said:


> The difference between target cutting (especially fenceline trees) and topping is immensely different ... as is the difference between reduction and topping.


Is there a difference between target and reduction pruning?


> Safest rule is the one I pound day long, plant so the canopy is contained within the boundaries of your property.


Keep pounding; that rule in 2006 may be ideal it is not reasonable. Small property size really limit selection. Best rule to pound is neighborly communication, so they agree on shared arboreal assets. In this case if the tree is on the line it was likely pre-existing--what's your rule on those, Mr. Frei?


> The large wound where a co-dominant leader was removed back to the trunk is a target cut, the alternative in this instance would have been to leave a stub which is worse.


I don't know the species or if there were laterals or nodes with dormant buds to cut to so I don't know if this is true. I do know that nothing is worse than trunk decay. 
Let's get one thing clear--a proper pruning target is one with a preformed branch protection zone. Codoms do not have these zones, so reduction/subordination--even to a small lateral-- is often proper, and removal of codoms to the origin seldom is.
There is a discussion ongoing in the ISA western chapter on proper heading--stay tuned for the winter issue for more. 


> Clearing the roof but remaining overhanging was not an option, client not allowed, so reduction not an option.


Client not allowed? What does that mean? Client does not understand benefits of shade etc.? I agree that air movement is needed; here we go for 4-6', 2 meters. Client ordered you to get 5 meters? 
If the tree is juvenile as you say, maybe all will be well at the end. Maybe next time client will not have such irrational fear of overhang. After all most of us are not in Bermuda--where gutter cleaners must have very regular work.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Oct 27, 2006)

Wouldn't it be ironic if the tree decayed at that bad cut after a few years and fell on his house, then the neighbor sued him and Ekka for for the loss of tree?


----------



## OTG BOSTON (Oct 27, 2006)

I've lost count of the number of neighbor disputes I have found myself in the middle of over the years. Now if I even sense there might be a problem, I RUN away!

Like treeseer says about "pounding neighborly communication". In a perfect world this would be the best option, unfortunately people su(k. If there is a problem between neighbors add a tree to the mix and the tree loses.

If the neighbors won't talk it over like civilized people I suggest that they write a letter stating their concerns and send it through registered mail. This way if there is a problem with the tree, there is documentation to support the case.

Nice work Ekka, it looks like ya did what ya hadda do, and it looks O.K.


----------



## l2edneck (Oct 27, 2006)

Looks good to me.



> In many fence-line prunes where it's possible we go to the target cut over the boundary providing the owner is happy with that. I rarely if ever cut as the crow flies leaving stubs.



I also will do the same.Around here we have violent storms almost on a daily basis.I have had to do alot of trims identical to that one because of insurance.Now its darn near impossible to get homeowners insurance here and when you recieve a letter in the mail saying trim that tree back or your cancelled,tree health basically goes out the window.

I personally think its a good job.Been done for years.I'm also under the understanding that it is all a learning experience.Im all for the books but im wonderin where the time is found for so much studying?I barely can keep up with work,kids,daily needs and have no time to study.Treeseer are you in the field or just a lab? I've noticed yer always about what someone has done wrong yet i see no proof of the work you do? Not trying to argue just wonderin.Thx


----------



## Ekka (Oct 27, 2006)

Before I jump into a response for Treeseer I just have to say to Mike, it would be funny! Then all can sue the govt for allowing it as a law!! That's the thing here, the fenceline disputes and tree treatments are out of whack.



treeseer said:


> Is there a difference between target and reduction pruning?



Yes of course there is, you know that. Reduction pruning is a style of pruning where you reduce the size of a tree/limb etc by cutting to (nodes for you) or other laterals.

The term target refers to the cut being made at the correct place and angle ... so in effect you can reduce a limb with target cuts. And if you do it otherwise then you'd be stubbing or flush cutting.



treeseer said:


> Keep pounding; that rule in 2006 may be ideal it is not reasonable. Small property size really limit selection. Best rule to pound is neighborly communication, so they agree on shared arboreal assets. In this case if the tree is on the line it was likely pre-existing--what's your rule on those, Mr. Frei?



well the answer to this is easy and logical.

The problem with neighbourly communication is this. Neighbours change. Landscapes change. People change. Stats say people move here every 5 years so what may be OK in the beginning has to be OK for ever? I cant see that. Frankly, I dont want trees so I'll communicate that to the neighbour ... he wants trees so there you go, a disagreement. But not really coz it's my land and my right not to have tresspassing trees so rather than spar with the neighbour I'll just cut it. And that's what happens.

With regard to pre-existing trees and significant trees etc the answer is (as stated earlier) protection orders. That way owners know the tree is not to be touched and hopefully tree loving people bought the properties.

Frankly, if you have a postage stamp sized yard and plant a species that's gonna hang over 4 fences then you need therapy. But cities need trees you say. Yep, footpaths, parks and commercial premises will have to carry the burden and citizens left to their own ... just being sensible about planting isn't that hard.

Australia is a young country, we are in the establishment phase so good rules and education now for appropriate planting will hopefully pay off down the track.



treeseer said:


> I don't know the species or if there were laterals or nodes with dormant buds to cut to so I don't know if this is true. I do know that nothing is worse than trunk decay.
> Let's get one thing clear--a proper pruning target is one with a preformed branch protection zone. Codoms do not have these zones, so reduction/subordination--even to a small lateral-- is often proper, and removal of codoms to the origin seldom is.
> There is a discussion ongoing in the ISA western chapter on proper heading--stay tuned for the winter issue for more.



According to the standards that is a target cut. I draw your attention to page 12 of the attached document. Although the document is draft that part has not been changed so is valid.

Also look at Page 9; 5.4 C and D ... it say's

C:- "When removing a co-dominant stem, the wound shall be made as close as possible to the trunk collar, without cutting into the collar or leaving a protruding stub."

D:- "In the absense of a trunk collar, the stem bark ridge shall be used to determine the angle of the cut when removing a co-dominant stem."

There's other references to reduction pruning to branches which are atleast 1/3 dia of the branch being cut.

But you have your node theory, that's not even 1/3 or 1/5, it's no branch or lateral! And regardless of the amount of times I've asked for graphics it is never forthcoming.

Also if you did cut to a node and it sprouted then the customer wouldn't be happy at all, he doesn't want more branches.

For your piece of mind I can tell you that the tree will wall that of easy. Now if it were a poinciana then you'd have a big hole that would seal over in about ..... 8 years. Which brings me to that old point I've brought up before ... the sealing process. The target cut has the best liklihood of sealing over.

I just wonder what'll happen when the trunk busts the fence?



treeseer said:


> Client not allowed? What does that mean? Client does not understand benefits of shade etc.? I agree that air movement is needed; here we go for 4-6', 2 meters. Client ordered you to get 5 meters?
> If the tree is juvenile as you say, maybe all will be well at the end. Maybe next time client will not have such irrational fear of overhang. After all most of us are not in Bermuda--where gutter cleaners must have very regular work.



I try for the roof clearance first, then back from the roof, but this was a back to the fence. Not negotiable. And many are the same.

It's a funny thing, we are arbos and most of the time we dont work for tree lovers.

When some-one asks for the tree to be topped I ask why, they respond in most cases with an assumed fear related position ... not fact and a definate maybe that the tree will fail. But roofs, litter and fencelines are not fear, they are real and tangible and affect their lives ... the benefits of the shade etc doesn't outweigh the inconvenience of mess, gutter cleaning etc in their minds ... but it is real and you can see it.

In this instance the tree is on the western side of the house and will still cast shadow without casting debri. 

I also draw your attention to the pic below, this is what happens when stubs are left. Can you spot any nodes on those stubs? And if so will they react the same?


----------



## treeseer (Oct 27, 2006)

Eric you're right about poinciana and eucs, hard to see nodes there. not my theory--got it from Shigo who wrote "reduction cuts should be made at nodes or crotches" USA standards allow heading cuts to small laterals or buds--don't oz standards? Better change em boy.

12ed, I'm hard on Eric cuz he knows I respect him. And trees here are very different from trees in Brisbane. O and I do get in a tree now and then; see blinky's pics from yesterday in the Freezing thread. I got the white hat, natch.:jester: 

"It's a funny thing, we are arbos and most of the time we dont work for tree lovers."

my perspective's skewed cuz 90% of the time I work for tree lovers or just folks who tell me to do what is right. I'm Spoiled rotten.


----------



## Ekka (Oct 27, 2006)

It would be good to see pics of nodes ... on trees not roses. 

Also pics of prune jobs that went to nodes a few years down the track.

We have reference to nodes in our standards but it's aim is at juvenile trees in the formative stage (nursery).

I read about the nodes but am sceptical. I have seen lots of different trees cut in all sorts of places and have never noticed what I would call a proper heartwood attached nodal growth. All I see is stacks of advanticious epicormic shoots hanging off a stub that's decaying.

So Guy, where are the nodes on this pic? Pssst, you didn't leave all those stubs up there did ya?


----------



## treeseer (Oct 27, 2006)

sorry i'm so techno-impaired I cannot resize node pics to post here. :blush:

Pic in thread does not show enough detail to ID nodes.

This is a derail here anyway isn't it?


----------



## Ekka (Oct 27, 2006)

Not really a derail .... it's about education, I link these things to my website so customers can see what goes on.

If nodes are in fact an alternative this is the place to prove it on real life scenarios ... I still get frowned on just for suggesting nodes, am yet to prove it so I remain sceptical.


----------



## treeseer (Oct 28, 2006)

If nodes are in fact an alternative"

well they are not that often an alternative. After storm damage and in some other reduction scenarios yes.

"this is the place to prove it on real life scenarios"

well not really real life is it? Pics aren't 3D so proof is hard to establish. I been showing ppts of this for years; wish I could just post one of those.

"I still get frowned on just for suggesting nodes,"

No one in oz studies botany or reads Shigo? lemme finish this article on proper heading cuts and I'll post it here and get someone down here to help me resize pics. Sorry to leave you hanging. Now back to the roof job:

"the benefits of the shade etc doesn't outweigh the inconvenience of mess, gutter cleaning etc in their minds"

Are their minds so skewed up that you can't break through by showing them tree benefits? Hard to believe in that hot climate they're all that silly, and tree owners here are so different. Are you working as hard at selling tree value as you are at badmouthing the competition's work habits?:monkey: 

"Also if you did cut to a node and it sprouted then the customer wouldn't be happy at all, he doesn't want more branches."

You got some arborphobes there, no doubt. Here they want more branches, more trees, cuz they understand the benefits and value of trees. That's where your education effort has to start. 
O and no, no stubs left in that willow oak; it was a routine crown cleaning job. I attached the heading article; sorry no pics; the mags don't have pdfs in their archives.

.


----------



## trevmcrev (Oct 28, 2006)

Knowing the tree market here, i think ekka did a good job.

I think in Australia, arboriculture as a profession is in its infancy much more so than the US. The majority of consumers here still require loads of educating as to the benefits an arborist can offer, and to the benefit of their own trees. This varies greatly with geographical and economical differences in your target clients. We work mostly in wealthier suburbs and deal with pretty aware clients. In less well off areas all they want to do is lop or remove or prune back the neighbors stuff. I try to keep away from it, educate the best you can, give the best compromise you can, and do walk away from the real idiots. 

It is getting better though, 10 years ago no one knew what an Arborist was, now 1/2 our phone calls ask if we are "arbratrists" or ""arborealists"  I think council permits have helped raise awareness and the odd mention on home/garden shows on TV. Still they might know they want and arbasomethingorother but getting them to do what you tell them is a whole other challange.

As for nodes, i only really would associate that being ok on very small diameter stuff, <2". Or maybe some exceptions in the case of remedial works after storm damage. Otherwise correct cuts at natural targets.

Have a look how this Golden Elm responded to this cut, i wonder if it was at a node?

 Trev


----------



## treeseer (Oct 28, 2006)

That's a beaut of a trophy there trev. No matter if it was at a node or not; the cut so big and tree so feeble it was all downhill from there.

Glad you mentioned the odd garden show and other publicity. I did an indoor seminar with 40 and an outdoor workshop for 11 today. Many times those numbers saw the notices and knew in fact that tree education does take place--that shows the value of trees right there.

You can't buy that kind of advertising.


----------



## arboralliance (Oct 28, 2006)

treeseer said:


> Eric you're right about poinciana and eucs, hard to see nodes there. not my theory--got it from Shigo who wrote "reduction cuts should be made at nodes or crotches" USA standards allow heading cuts to small laterals or buds--don't oz standards? Better change em boy.
> 
> 12ed, I'm hard on Eric cuz he knows I respect him. And trees here are very different from trees in Brisbane. O and I do get in a tree now and then; see blinky's pics from yesterday in the Freezing thread. I got the white hat, natch.:jester:
> 
> ...




"We" are the "Shigo's" of Australia, for heavens sake, I wouldnt have done that either IF IT WAS AN OPTION!! (Shigo was a brilliant man God rest his precious soul...) 

Guy (treeseer), you're all for "building people up" and not constantly looking at the negative (refer to your "uplifting" of Jason-Jay and his management of the Ficus in Brisbane City, no pun intended); I have not spoken to Eric about any of these trees (he refuses to come play golf with me so I am not talking to him till he does) HOWEVER, I would imagine Erics' client in this case would have attempted to "educate" Eric on how they were gonna lop the thing all the way down to the fence line and let it re-shoot like the 6 previous "Arborists" whom had come to give quotes before had told them was the thing to do and "just like" all their relatives, neighbors and mates throughout this sun burnt land of ours; so, Eric would have spent quite some careful considerate time educating (not inundating) this "potential" client on what was best for all involved with the tree which would have "negotiated" back and forth a little until the client was "happy" not to raze the tree to the "standard" 7'...

(Take that picture and x 10, I have been asked to do the same to 120' Quercus in Victoria and nearly had to punch on with "Arborists" to get them to see the sense in not doing it... It is a constant battle, we are a people of land clearing and have been for 200+ years NON STOP!)

So, Guy, please compliment Eric on bringing around yet another fear filled citizen of this "land of the mighty LOP!" as I believe you may be out of line (no pun intended)...

Yes our laws are antiquated and based on fear, heaven help us, worse yet our federal Govt invites itself to all your Govt's punch ons, heck your senate waited patiently fifteen years for John Howard to come into governance over this little stepping stone in the pacific, we, the few true "Arborists" swelter in the sun AND the heat of the masses as they frown and laugh at our decision to lean to the green side, so please, link arms with us and help us fight the good fight and appreciate it "is" a very different little island we live on and not the toe of you know who... 

(Guy, "word" still not running, gettin back soon on all that you sent, sorry...):bang:


----------



## M.D. Vaden (Oct 28, 2006)

Ekka said:


> It would be good to see pics of nodes ... on trees not roses.
> 
> Also pics of prune jobs that went to nodes a few years down the track.
> 
> ...




Nice scabbard.

Is that a Silky scabbard?


----------



## foodforests (Oct 29, 2006)

When you guys talk about nodes for correct heading cuts, I get a little confused. 
Aren't correct heading cuts supposed to go back to a branch at least a third the diameter of the branch you are removing? A node on a mature branch is just an epicormic bud right?
Btw, As far as Jcarandas go, they do seem to be extremely resilient trees. In this case I would have to think that Eric has made a pretty good judgement, but of course, I am pretty new to all this, so my opinion isn't worth all that much.


----------



## Ekka (Oct 29, 2006)

foodforests said:


> When you guys talk about nodes for correct heading cuts, I get a little confused.
> Aren't correct heading cuts supposed to go back to a branch at least a third the diameter of the branch you are removing? A node on a mature branch is just an epicormic bud right?



Hey, you're not the only one bamboozled by these nodes.

Apparently they're not just epicormics and they dont grow like buggery but are bonded to the heartwood and grow naturally like a normal branch.

And if that's the case ... I aint ever seen one.  

Gotta get some nodes pics, I've been carrying on about it for near on 2 years now. :help:


----------



## arboralliance (Oct 29, 2006)

*Um...*



foodforests said:


> When you guys talk about nodes for correct heading cuts, I get a little confused.
> Aren't correct heading cuts supposed to go back to a branch at least a third the diameter of the branch you are removing? A node on a mature branch is just an epicormic bud right?
> Btw, As far as Jcarandas go, they do seem to be extremely resilient trees. In this case I would have to think that Eric has made a pretty good judgement, but of course, I am pretty new to all this, so my opinion isn't worth all that much.



I was gonna accuse ya of paying this bloke to wind Guy up Ek but after his comment about the Jac' I know he aint with you... (Did you even touch the Jac' in thu pic?)


----------



## trevmcrev (Oct 29, 2006)

Ekka said:


> Hey, you're not the only one bamboozled by these nodes.
> 
> Apparently they're not just epicormics and they dont grow like buggery but are bonded to the heartwood and grow naturally like a normal branch.
> 
> ...



Me too, i'd like to see a pic of something cut to a node rather than a branch, without it just being a lop job.

I agree reduction cuts should be made to something about 1/3 of the diameter of the removed part.


----------



## treeseer (Oct 29, 2006)

Ekka you did a wonderful job clearing that roof and preserving a great deal of that tree. NOw go play golf with Jarrah.

Sorry if the article is too obscure w/o pics. It's about ENDO-, not EPI- cormic buds. More wednesday.


----------



## l2edneck (Oct 29, 2006)

heres one fer ya:

ficus hangin way over the carport,I whacked it good.
View attachment 39524


opcorn:


----------



## arboralliance (Oct 29, 2006)

*I'm with you Guy...*



trevmcrev said:


> Me too, i'd like to see a pic of something cut to a node rather than a branch, without it just being a lop job.
> 
> I agree reduction cuts should be made to something about 1/3 of the diameter of the removed part.



Guy, I agree with you as I base my principals on formative horticultural pruning and shaping of everything from fruit trees through to hedges and all in between where "drawing" wood (a small leading stem) is required to be left in so both dormant buds and grafted buds don't jettison from sap flow in spring and where dormant nodes are the only thing relatively that you have to cut back to and do so for the reason of promoting growth and direction of growth...

I see and hear all the time how "Arborits" are locked into the rule of thirds in trees without realising fractions of those thirds and the true nature of what is "commonly" coined "CODIT" and how we can and do and possibly should be able to manipulate this behavior within trees and all flora...

More "Arborists" should write their own rules or theorem specific to their area and individual micro-climates within these areas as all are unique beyond compare yet we all seem to be stuck in the rut of sheepishly following the leaders rather than complimenting these leading "scientists" of our profession and expanding on their work as they would insist we do...

HOWEVER, we do have different conditions here and Eucalypts are different (as you would have been told repeatedly by Eric) in there nature... Dormant buds are not as evident and in allot of cases not evident at all, not allot of research has been done on this either, I do know of a Phd. done on E. regnans relating to water flow and another on debris drop (A ton a year per tree!) but non on dormant buds/Endo/Epi-cormic growth/s in Eucalyptus species, I will be asking around though...(I have had extended "discusions" with a scientist that E. regnans will not as it cannot epicormic shoot yet i have seen them repeatedly do so in many different areas throughout Victoria, Urban, Sub-urban and Forest...)

It is interesting that allot of people refer to anything not cut back to one third as being a lop job, I wonder how many years of observing flora response to cuts these soothsayers have done to make such grand attacks/claims... Surely they can see, as an example, the picture above of you; with growth rates, within a few years this "stub" will have a nodal growth that is virtually the same dia. as the parent branch/stub therefore "loping" is not a relavent claim... 

Look forward to more on this and other articles Guy, Eric...

Interesting pic of you there Guy, didnt know you and Eric were swapping "modeling" pics of each other, were you demonstrating a comfortable and safe work position to a class there Guy? Mmm, comfy...opcorn: 


> heres one fer ya:
> 
> ficus hangin way over the carport,I whacked it good.
> Attachment 39524


l2edneck, can you explain your use of the antiquated stubb prunning technique, please...(Or were there some dormant nodes there you pruned back to? )


----------



## treeseer (Oct 29, 2006)

I'm not a pro with ficus but I think they tolerate stubbing better than most...diameter the main issue there 12ed?

"were you demonstrating a comfortable and safe work position"

Yeah in fact it was comfortable enough and fairly safe/ 20 yrs of climbing willow oaks it's like ho hum.

i agree re 1/3 and other rules, and the need to More "Arborists" should write their own rules or theorem. we call them protocols here, but if you write em you gotta defend em well. no virtue in random guessing, no matter how educated.

. angle (aspect) is at least as important a criterion in target selection as diameter in most species imo.


----------



## l2edneck (Oct 29, 2006)

> l2edneck, can you explain your use of the antiquated stubb prunning technique, please...(Or were there some dormant nodes there you pruned back to? )



I dont like to stub, but the desired outcome will be a wall that can be trimmed by hedgers.Ficus are very tolerant.I could whack it at the ground,2 months later it will be 10 feet tall.That one was hangin way over and touchin the structure.Here to have anything touchin or even over hangin usually results in a pest problem.

I will post future pics as it grows back so we can specifically study the outcome.

Thx again guys.


----------



## Ekka (Oct 30, 2006)

l2edneck said:


> I dont like to stub, but the desired outcome will be a wall that can be trimmed by hedgers.



Tallyho ole chap, send ya resume' to the Brisbane City Council ... they need more blokes like you.  

Tree whacking for scientific research is what it's all about  

Aboralliance ... what a tree does in nature is also not tolerated in suburbia. Stubs, decay and resprouted growth is all perfectly normal and the trees way of responding ... but in urban settings it is not the desired outcome.

As in the example shown by me regrowth is not going to be accepted or tolerated ... in 12edneck's example the client is prepared to hedge the regrowth.

2 different results from 2 different methods but which one is right?

Be careful and think about your answer.


----------



## treeseer (Oct 30, 2006)

Ekka said:


> Tallyho ole chap, send ya resume' to the Brisbane City Council ... they need more blokes like you. Tree whacking for scientific research is what it's all about


 12ed's pruning was to standard--heading, even internodal, is acceptable for a specified objective--like building a green wall. I once ruined a holly hedge by making collar cuts--learned the hard way.


> what a tree does in nature is also not tolerated in suburbia. Stubs, decay and resprouted growth is all perfectly normal and the trees way of responding ... but in urban settings it is not the desired outcome.


one size fits all-all owners of city trees think the same? NOT. Some have learned to appreciate tree value.


> As in the example shown by me regrowth is not going to be accepted or tolerated ... in 12edneck's example the client is prepared to hedge the regrowth.
> 2 different results from 2 different methods but which one is right?
> Be careful and think about your answer.


Easy breezy--they both are right! Eric, as eager as you may be to polarize all these issues into rightandwrong, it just does not work that way. A ficus is like a holly or some conifers, amenable to greenwallification, so 12ed's stubs may have been proper (I can't see enough to be sure). There is also the issue of hurricanes in his microclimate.

That tree you raised off the roof looked to be a lot woodier, so your collar cuts were proper on it. More proper yet may have been to sell the client on tree value and allow more overhang, smaller wounds, more symmetry. I know that is not easy or quick, but it will never be done as long as you focus on promoting your superiority as a tree cutter. Make the commitment to focus on promoting tree value instead.

If you grow it, they will come.


----------



## arboralliance (Oct 30, 2006)

*Wtf!*

Thanks Guy but It still appears you've misundertood my post, all good, hope your well...


----------



## Ekka (Oct 30, 2006)

treeseer said:


> Easy breezy--they both are right!



Then when a customer asks for their tree to be topped to make it bushier that is right too?

Have you read this?

http://www.plantamnesty.org/shearmadness.htm


----------



## arboralliance (Oct 30, 2006)

*Oh dear...*



Ekka said:


> Then when a customer asks for their tree to be topped to make it bushier that is right too?
> 
> Have you read this?
> 
> http://www.plantamnesty.org/shearmadness.htm



Guy has completely lost me here Eric... And you are right with this comment...And another excellent article/site in that link Eric...


----------



## treeseer (Oct 30, 2006)

Ok sorry Jarrah I deleted your name that wasa there incorrectly.

I originally wrote "shearing", then substituted "greenwallification", because constant shearing with no thinning usually leads to problems in most plants. Yeah I know plantamnesty's work and promote it, most recently in The Case of the Waning Waxmyrtles. You saw that, right?

"Then when a customer asks for their tree to be topped to make it bushier that is right too?"

Topping is never right, but severe reduction sometimes is, on Leylands, hollies, ficus, etc. 12ed, it'd be nice to have closeups of that wound response. Ekka, to quote Bob Dylan, if you cannot bring good news (along with the bad), then don't bring any.


----------



## Ekka (Oct 30, 2006)

treeseer said:


> I originally wrote "shearing", then substituted "greenwallification", because constant shearing with no thinning usually leads to problems in most plants. Yeah I know plantamnesty's work and promote it, most recently in The Case of the Waning Waxmyrtles. You saw that, right?
> 
> "Then when a customer asks for their tree to be topped to make it bushier that is right too?"
> 
> Topping is never right, but severe reduction sometimes is, on Leylands, hollies, ficus, etc. 12ed, it'd be nice to have closeups of that wound response. Ekka, to quote Bob Dylan, if you cannot bring good news (along with the bad), then don't bring any.



I didn't know you wrote that, well done.

Guy this thread has over 1000 views, people are reading this and wonder, "yeah, should I just cut it ... where and why?"

Dont take it personally or anything, afterall I'm the one who goes right out there putting pics and vids of my jobs up all the time, but curious minds asks questions.

I dont do hedges much, very rare. In fact many aren't doing to well in this drought. The other day I had to whack an overgrown duranta hedge in half ... but we are only talking a 6' hedge to 3' and about half the width.

I dont treat or consider hedges in the same field as trees. Trees are woody plants that if they fail will cause damage or hurt you. A hedge on the other hand ... well, not as though much will happen if it fails. But I suppose in saying that I wouldn't be calling a Leylandi 50' high screen a shrub hedge either.

I suppose if that was a pine tree over the fence you'd have a big fat zero chance of a green wall too. Different trees have different growth and decay capabilities.


----------



## ROLLACOSTA (Oct 30, 2006)

I had a nut job a few weeks call me out and ask me to bid/quote for 3 mature oaks 300 years+ old ,been their longer than the house and this joker,he wanted everything overhanging his property cut back to the fence line,I don't think so I told him,I also told if you don't like trees you shouldn't have bought the place..

Overhere you CAN cut branches and roots etc back to the fence line ,but whatever you do must not be detrimental to the trees health


----------



## Ekka (Oct 31, 2006)

Hey Rolla

See we just dont have that here, the whole flamin place was only settled 220 years ago, but it would be a crying shame to cut that oak.

Sad part is some-one probably did cut it.

Here's the other thing, how do measure or guage "detrimental" ???

Maybe it's protected and you need permission to cut it?

I read somewhere that in USA, perhaps Florida you need permission to remove any limbs greater than 4" in dia.



treeseer said:


> Ekka, to quote Bob Dylan, if you cannot bring good news (along with the bad), then don't bring any.



I just brought along from todays tours driving between jobs this picture of a beautiful Leopard tree, do you like it. It's the big one behind the 2 palms, sheez a ripper.


----------



## treeseer (Oct 31, 2006)

Eric that is a beauty, though it looks like the utility will soon be wahcking one side to clear the wires. If the owner knows they are coming and wants the best job possible, maybe they would hire you to prune it in advance.


----------



## ROLLACOSTA (Oct 31, 2006)

Eric ,I beleive the oak never got touched,I explained the legal consequences to the client,and to my knowledge he saw the light..

As for 'detrimental' thats open to a lot of diffferant interpretations,to my thinking it would mean here, anything 'other' than BS3998 [British pruning standards] 

What a magnificent tree in the pic..


----------



## SteveBullman (Oct 31, 2006)

Ekka said:


> Sad part is some-one probably did cut it.



damm right they did, it was me!
made a good bit of loot on that job too!!
:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Ekka (Oct 31, 2006)

No you didn't Stephen ....

... but I wonder, if you were subcontracting to ABC Trees and the crew pulls up, has a look, boss aint there ... what would you do?


----------



## SteveBullman (Oct 31, 2006)

300 year oak trees like lee mentioned then definetly not.


----------



## Ekka (Nov 1, 2006)

stephenbullman said:


> 300 year oak trees like lee mentioned then definetly not.



And if it was say a 30' Leylandii thing intruding over the fence then what would you do?


----------



## trevmcrev (Nov 1, 2006)

Ekka down here in Melb a council local law permit overides the commom right to whack back to fenceline. Most councils use a size criteria such as >50cm dia @ 1m high or 45cm dia @ 1.5 or 110cm circ @ base or similar. It'd be better if they were all uniform but at least we got sumthin unlike up there.

If over these sizes a permit to prune is needed and council will dictate that the overhanging branches may be REDUCED but not removed.

If the tree is under size, or the customer gets "Larry the Local Lopper" who doesnt give a stuff then they can hack it back however they want and even throw the chit back over the fence!!

Trev


----------



## Ekka (Nov 1, 2006)

They're sensible regs Trev, I agree with that.

Does Larry the Lopper get in the chit for whacking it when it's protected?


----------



## arboralliance (Nov 1, 2006)

*Actually Ekka...*



Ekka said:


> Hey Rolla
> 
> See we just dont have that here, the whole flamin place was only settled 220 years ago, but it would be a crying shame to cut that oak.


We do have that over here Ekka, our North American and European (cold/temperate climate) species were first planted as far back as 200 years ago and some certainly 100-150 years ago, I have been formulating a theorem based on the fact that we don't have a true dormant period here so potentially our 100-200 year old trees potentially have the same size and shape/structure as 300-600+ year old Northern hemisphere cousins because ours are constantly growing whereas the Northern Hemisphere species in their native environs can have up to 6 months dormancy every year...


----------



## trevmcrev (Nov 1, 2006)

Ekka said:


> They're sensible regs Trev, I agree with that.
> 
> Does Larry the Lopper get in the chit for whacking it when it's protected?



Most of the councils dont come down hard enough, some are damm pissweak and let em get away with a slap on the wrist. One council though is dynamite on it. Big fines and also several criminal convictions though court, mostly for developers that blatantly disregard the laws coz they dont give a crap about a $5000 fine if they can fit an extra $1.5m townhouse on the block if a tree is gone.

Trev


----------



## arboralliance (Nov 1, 2006)

trevmcrev said:


> Most of the councils dont come down hard enough, some are damm pissweak and let em get away with a slap on the wrist. One council though is dynamite on it. Big fines and also several criminal convictions though court, mostly for developers that blatantly disregard the laws coz they dont give a crap about a $5000 fine if they can fit an extra $1.5m townhouse on the block if a tree is gone.
> 
> Trev



The rest of Australia and in particular Brisbane could take a few pages out of many of Melbourne's City Councils reg's, I've had the pleasure of being on both sides of the fence having successfully defended and avoided 6 figure fines imposed by well intended Civil Engineers clueless about arboriculture but knee jerk reacting to the removal of something that "still has green leaves on it!" (some epicormic shoots on hollow trees threatening a house, E.ovata of all species.) and privy to the detail of 6 fig fines imposed on developers and private rsidents alike far far-in exces of $5000... ($150,000 - $250,000)

Though i still know of some shocking cases of deforestation and environmental vandalism at the hands of developers and owner builders alike all over Melbourne/Victoria...


----------



## SteveBullman (Nov 1, 2006)

probably nothing. every situation is different though.....leylandi arent exactly specimen trees. i always try and tell the customer, if its there it may as well look half decent rather than hacking it back to the trunk.


----------



## treeseer (Nov 1, 2006)

trevmcrev said:


> Most of the councils dont come down hard enough, some are damm pissweak and let em get away with a slap on the wrist. One council though is dynamite on it. Big fines and also several criminal convictions though court, mostly for developers that blatantly disregard the laws coz they dont give a crap about a $5000 fine if they can fit an extra $1.5m townhouse on the block if a tree is gone.Trev


Trev that describes town govts here. Most can't be bothered with enforcing their laws, and are fine withthe fraud of abetting lawbreakers. It'd be good to see some press coverage of the enforcement down there.

"And if it was say a 30' Leylandii thing intruding over the fence then what would you do?"

Eric, if your client wanted less overhang, s/he'd clip it early and often, to maintain the green. Trouble with conifers is, if you wait too long there is no green inside to cut to, and the screen is effectively lost.


----------



## l2edneck (Nov 1, 2006)

*Good info guys keep it comin.*

Tree,check yer PM thx


----------



## trevmcrev (Nov 2, 2006)

arboralliance said:


> The rest of Australia and in particular Brisbane could take a few pages out of many of Melbourne's City Councils reg's, I've had the pleasure of being on both sides of the fence having successfully defended and avoided 6 figure fines imposed by well intended Civil Engineers clueless about arboriculture but knee jerk reacting to the removal of something that "still has green leaves on it!" (some epicormic shoots on hollow trees threatening a house, E.ovata of all species.) and privy to the detail of 6 fig fines imposed on developers and private rsidents alike far far-in exces of $5000... ($150,000 - $250,000)
> 
> Though i still know of some shocking cases of deforestation and environmental vandalism at the hands of developers and owner builders alike all over Melbourne/Victoria...



Yeah some of the developers are bad, i've done a few expert witness jobs for VCAT hearings and some of them do get thier  now and then.:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## Ekka (Nov 7, 2006)

I'll start this post by saying ...

I was not the guy that did this job.

Remember the first pic of this thread? Well, that job's been done but I'll embed the first pic below and appearing in order will be the new cut look and then a close up of the stubs and flush cuts by the contractor who did it.

See, you want to debate about how I cut, there's no debate!


----------



## treeseer (Nov 7, 2006)

So the people in the white house on the right wanted a longer view? after losing that much crown, the stubs are a minor problem imo, depending on the species and the probable response.

Too bad the owner and the arborist could not have reached a more tree-friendly compromise.


----------



## Ekka (Nov 10, 2006)

I bet it aint over yet.

Wait till that pool is full and the filter gets blocked with leaves and fruit from that tree .... then wait till he realises a chunk of his view from that deck is also lost coz of that tree.

The stubs will regrow allowing the frustration levels to increase.:hmm3grin2orange: 

Then perhaps the owner will pay for the entire tree to be cut down.

What you have here is new Savvy businessman renovator owner vs old been there 40 years retired folk. I know, I get this *all the time*, and it goes on for years.

You have to realise that when you pay $1million dollars for something no 2 bob trees gonna spoil it.


----------



## Ekka (Nov 16, 2006)

Hey, you think my prunings controversial then cop a load of this fence-line treatment.


----------



## treeseer (Nov 16, 2006)

Ekka said:


> Hey, you think my prunings controversial then cop a load of this fence-line treatment.


So that vertical basal wound was where a root was cut? What will keep that tree from falling on its owner?

I've had to prune roots to make room for buildings. Not a fun job.


----------



## Ekka (Nov 24, 2006)

Bumped into the Victorian rules today.

http://www.liv.asn.au/public/legalinfo/neighbour/neighbour-Trees.html

If branches from a neighbour’s tree overhang your property or its roots spread onto your land causing a nuisance or damage to your property, you are entitled to cut off the branches or sever the roots.

* Take care not to needlessly kill the tree or make it unstable. If the tree is needlessly damaged or becomes unstable and causes damage to other property, you may be liable to pay compensation.
* In the absence of an agreement with your neighbour or a court order, you will have to bear any cost of tree lopping yourself.
* The limbs or roots remain the property of your neighbour.
o They should be returned to your neighbour or disposed of by agreement.
* If a tree is causing physical damage to your property you can apply to the Magistrates Court for an order requiring your neighbour to remove the tree.
o You may be entitled to recover compensation for damages. 

Resolving a dispute

1. Speak to your neighbour about the problem in a friendly and non-confrontational way.
2. If a solution cannot be reached, remove the limbs or roots yourself. Make sure you do not damage the tree.
3. If damage has occurred, consult a solicitor to pursue alternative dispute resolution methods.
4. If the neighbour still refuses to take action, you can commence proceedings in the Magistrates court.

Legal action should always be a last resort as it can have lasting detrimental effect on neighbour relations.


----------



## treeseer (Nov 25, 2006)

sounds like an ok plan, depending on how "nuisance' and "needlessly" are defined...


----------



## Grizzly (Nov 26, 2006)

It would have seemed more logical to just get rid of that tree. Its just going to grow back fall over or be in some one elses view. I know that means more money, but why go back to a job with a stubern customer.  
I had a job near a fence and I had the last 8 feet to go. So I cut it down in four sections I lost two peices on the hill along with bending the fence. The one thing I hate about working on the property line is the fence. It seems if a drop a branch even near it, theres a mark or scratch of some sort.


----------



## Grizzly (Nov 26, 2006)

Ekka said:


> Bumped into the Victorian rules today.
> 
> http://www.liv.asn.au/public/legalinfo/neighbour/neighbour-Trees.html
> 
> ...



Or drill a hole in the root on your property and pour some round up in it. 
That stops that damage and creates a solution for that stubern neighbour to cut it down. 
in which results in more work (MORE MONEY)


----------



## Ekka (Dec 13, 2006)

21 November 2006 NSW Parliament passed a new Bill dealing with fenceline trees and tree disputes.

The new laws will introduce fines up to $110,000 for failing to comply with a court order.

Gone are the arguments and enter new fast reasoning and logic.

Here's a PDF draft of the new legislation.

http://www.pco.nsw.gov.au/pdf/exposure/b06-004-12-d11.pdf

I've read it and like it, about time some seriousness comes of this, the 2nd highest urban dispute area ... the first is noise complaints.


----------



## l2edneck (Dec 20, 2006)

> If branches from a neighbour’s tree overhang your property or its roots spread onto your land causing a nuisance or damage to your property, you are entitled to cut off the branches or sever the roots.




Yes you buy the ground aswell as air space,unless defined by your deed restrictions.

All of us paxes taxes on our property horizantally(sp?).Just wait till we are taxed vertically(sp?)

Thus inlies the old age dispute.........













my climate.....every three - six months pruning


----------



## treeseer (Dec 20, 2006)

Nice pics 12ed. 

Both landowners have what they want, and the arborist works to maintain the trees. I don't see a problem there--not an ideal situation, but nothing to go to war over.:angry2: 

Hey 12ed, FLISA in Innisbrook next June--ya goin?


----------

