# opinion on hazard tree assessment



## Greenleaf (Apr 2, 2008)

Looking to see what some other knowledgeable assessors would think about this tree which I've been contacted to assess. pictures attached.

The tree has substantial lean >20% towards house, with no visible rooting problems, ie. no lifting root mat etc. From a distance the tree is correcting itself 'sweep'. The reason why I was contacted to look at the tree is because someone noticed a spiral crack (not open) which is on the windward/ tension side of the tree. Banged the tree with a mallet and it sounds like it is sound, and it appears that there is callus forming around the crack/fissure.

Wondering what your opinions would be with a tree like this. A very obvious target being the house. Following the criteria from the WCB Wildlife/ Danger Tree Assessment process because the crack is not open (<2cm), nor can I determine how far it extends into the cross-section of the tree, and there are no obvious rooting problems the tree would be a low/moderate risk and I'd recommend monitoring.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Apr 2, 2008)

I would call it a moderate to low increase in risk of failure from "the perfect tree".

As you note, the cause of the lean, throw is old, is self correcting.

DO you known the history of the area? Was there a high wind event back then.

There is no decay, or seepage from the crack, could it be relatively recent lightning? 

From your pictures I would recommend keeping the tree, and if they are concerned with future throwing, install a plumb bob they can use to measure any movement


----------



## masterarbor (Apr 2, 2008)

ditto


----------



## clearance (Apr 2, 2008)

Lots of trees in B.C. If it causes worry, saw it down.


----------



## Thillmaine (Apr 2, 2008)

*When in doubt..*

How about pruning it?> Reduce weight on ends of branches, take down the top a few whorls, maybe remove some branches to reduce windthrow...


----------



## D Mc (Apr 2, 2008)

Top it by 1/3! 

Come on now, that was too funny! :jawdrop: 

Seriously, what sticks out in our minds right off the bat from the first picture is its vulnerability to both wind and lightning due to its solitary status. Either one of which could have caused a similar injury. I think I would feel better with a reduced sail area...thinning, thinning, thinning NOT topping. LOL Even small amounts can help. 

How far up does the fracture go? 

In our area, most of the wind thrown spruces and pines fall to the east (our prevailing winds are out of the west). You mentioned the crack was on the windward side. What is the history of windthrow in that area? That could increase or reduce the risk.

D and S Mc


----------



## Nailsbeats (Apr 2, 2008)

I'm with Clearance on this, take er down. That top will come off someday and go through the roof. Big tree+ catching lots of wind+ leaning over house+ crack started= takedown. Unless of course the homeowner is against it. Then, well.......I would go with the standard 1/3 topping. Ha.


----------



## Greenleaf (Apr 2, 2008)

Our prevailing winds are out of the west as well, much of the spruce in the neighborhood have a gradual lean eastward. There have been multiple wind events here over the last 50 years which caused windthrow in different parts of town. Mainly previously forest fir with low taper. We are located in a tighter section of the columbia valley and can get some pretty violent storms out of the hills.

The thought of lightning was in my head as well. If that were the case I'd prefer not to be the arborist who climbed and pruned the tree that failed 6 months later. Pretty bad for business. I live 5 blocks from here and just removed a large forked spruce in my front yard a few weeks ago, was about the same height and age, 95years. I'm not worried about culling a bad tree, but like to be fairly certain it is a bad tree. This tree is located fairly close to the columbia river and when the water level rises the water table will come right up in that section of town.

Clearance you remind me of lots of my friends. Always need both sides of a coin on a decision.


----------



## kruege84 (Apr 3, 2008)

Cracks = Decay

Decay = Bad

Lean = Bad

House = Target

I'm no pro, so I won't yes or no... But I sure wouldn't want that leaning towards my house....


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 3, 2008)

*If your going to sign of on it*



Greenleaf said:


> Looking to see what some other knowledgeable assessors would think about this tree which I've been contacted to assess. pictures attached.
> 
> The tree has substantial lean >20% towards house, with no visible rooting problems, ie. no lifting root mat etc. From a distance the tree is correcting itself 'sweep'. The reason why I was contacted to look at the tree is because someone noticed a spiral crack (not open) which is on the windward/ tension side of the tree. Banged the tree with a mallet and it sounds like it is sound, and it appears that there is callus forming around the crack/fissure.
> 
> Wondering what your opinions would be with a tree like this. A very obvious target being the house. Following the criteria from the WCB Wildlife/ Danger Tree Assessment process because the crack is not open (<2cm), nor can I determine how far it extends into the cross-section of the tree, and there are no obvious rooting problems the tree would be a low/moderate risk and I'd recommend monitoring.



Couple thoughts for you...

First off, make sure you have errors and omissions on your insurance policy; general liability will not cover you for assessments. Second, the new standard for tree assessment in the urban area is the hazard tree assessor course put on by ISA {PNW} and WCB. The new course does not have a lot in common with the wildlife tree and hazard tree assessment course designed for forest operations and worker safety.

I would want to know the extent of the crack before making the call. How high does it go? How far in? Make sure it is not a shear plane fracture [all the way through the wood]. My understanding is spiral fractures are the most structurally compromising of the fractures. Thinning and reducing the sail area
of the tree will increase the elliptical movement of the stem in wind which will exasperate a spiral fracture weakness. I would not thin very much and most of that on the lean side. 

Where are you in the Kootneys, Trail, Nelson, Castlegar ? If so, you can get some very sever winds and, by the looks of it, that tree is not sheltered. 

I would spend a little more time with that fir before recommending retention.


----------



## Greenleaf (Apr 3, 2008)

Thanks Mitchell. I am actually enrolled in the Tree Risk Assessors course in Vancouver next week. I've looked at 100's and 100's of trees around campgrounds and trails, but this is the first really tricky decision I've had with a tree that could compromise a house. Makes it difficult when there are no other qualified assessors around to bounce ideas off, so that's why I've posted it on here.

As far as the crack goes, it only extends as high as you can see in this photo. Like I said it is not open, and therefore I can not determine how far it extends through the tree. Not sure that sticking an increment bore into it is going to tell me very much.

As far as liability goes, it seems to me that the best way to protect yourself regardless of insurance etc. is to do your due diligence and follow some sort of standard decision making guideline. The new Tree Risk Assessor's course seems to leave open alot more flexibility for assessors to lean either way as long as you justify it. The only way I could reduce the liability to nil on my end would be to remove the tree just in case. In which case not knowing what is going on inside makes me question rigging the top out above the house?

By the way I'm located in the North....Golden.


----------



## D Mc (Apr 3, 2008)

Greenleaf, let us know how you like the Tree Assessors course S Mc is debating taking it.

Remember try not to impose your opinions on the clients. State the facts. That is what they are looking for. Everyone's level of acceptable risk is different and balanced by different criteria. They need you to give them the facts and with those facts any decisions are theirs to make. 

As a side note, I have worked on many lightning struck trees and they ranged from the scariest trees imaginable to mere boo-boos. Just saying the possibility of a lightning strike is in itself not a diagnosis but an observation. 

New reports we have read are demonstrating that reduction of overall tree crown (raise skirt, reduce top) reduces wind sail factor better than thinning. But as this tree didn't appear to be a good candidate for that, we didn't mention it. 

D and S Mc


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Apr 3, 2008)

> New reports we have read are demonstrating that reduction of overall tree crown (raise skirt, reduce top) reduces wind sail factor better than thinning. But as this tree didn't appear to be a good candidate for that, we didn't mention it.



My understanding of this is that it allows the wind in throughout the canopy without reducing the actual surface area. This will change the action of bend, where raising will change the moment of bend. 

I've found that thin and reduce puts less stress on the tree overall then a raise and reduce. You take some of the leverage off the stem/branch end, but do not alter the moment of bend as much.

One problem with changing where it bends, is you also remove the dynamic mass that will generate the new reaction wood that it will need to compensate.

Spruce are the hardest to work with this way, there really is not much you can do vis reduction, without making future problems and ruining the aesthetics.


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 3, 2008)

*Nice Country*



Greenleaf said:


> By the way I'm located in the North....Golden.



Not sure if you have any interior wet belt around you there? Not to far from you there, in Revelstoke, I was surprised to get into cedars with massive 12 foot butts. In fact I think my avatar picture is from there. 

If you have an increment borer It would show you how deep the crack is. If you do remove it [I'm sure you know] to increase stability, you can leave the branches on until you get the top out.

Your right though it takes a whole different approach and mindset to look for tree retention. I am fairly new to considering tree retention with defects and targets as a possibility myself. In my past any suspect tree was automaticly removed. Which is what the new course is designed to address.

The new course is well worth your while, I defiantly recommend it. Who is teaching your course; Dr Dunster is very well informed and he makes it worth while just to here the lectures. I believe he designed the course himself.

They are not kidding when they say to do the pre reading. I personally did not thinking it would be another unrealistic super objective WCB show up and get the piece of paper kinda deal. It is not, the course parameters are subjective so you have to prove you know what you are doing. The test is written answer. Most guys I know who have done it, myself included, were not sure if we passed the test. Know your common root and butt rots. Also, have an idea of how compartmentalization of decay varies in tree species; IE, alder = terrible, maple = ok, cedar = very good etc.


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Apr 3, 2008)

What a grand tree! 

It is certainly deserving of a 110 percent effort towards salvation............if it were out in the middle of nowhere.

Honestly, this makes great conversation. I learn so much that inspires me reading these types of threads.

Meanwhile, I’d take it down.

My simple outlook is to plant trees in lieu of saving something like that, just for the sake of saving, or attempting to. Planting is very rewarding, and makes so much better sense to the average homeowner than always looking at that leaning tower of homewrecker wondering if that tree guy really has a clue or not.

I think it is advantageous to look at it from their point of view and perhaps that of the neighborhood as well. It makes no sense to save such a tree to most people. 


I look at that first picture and imagine the tree gone. I don’t like that at all…..there is something missing. Ah, then I imagine a nice choice tree in its place. There, that’s better.

No worries…nice landscape.


----------



## cb01 (Apr 3, 2008)

Greenleaf said:


> Thanks Mitchell. I am actually enrolled in the Tree Risk Assessors course in Vancouver next week. I've looked at 100's and 100's of trees around campgrounds and trails, but this is the first really tricky decision I've had with a tree that could compromise a house. Makes it difficult when there are no other qualified assessors around to bounce ideas off, so that's why I've posted it on here.
> 
> As far as the crack goes, it only extends as high as you can see in this photo. Like I said it is not open, and therefore I can not determine how far it extends through the tree. Not sure that sticking an increment bore into it is going to tell me very much.
> 
> ...



If you decide to remove it you could put some good ( 10,000 # ) ratchet binders on it as you go up. I would use at least 4. The IML resistogragh might be a good investment if you plan to do a lot of assesments like this. Is there any way to one cut it? Put the binders on and wack it. Replant


----------



## Thillmaine (Apr 3, 2008)

*You cant reduce it?*

I saw on of the posts that spruce are diffcult to work on and hard to reduce...I agree they SUCK to work on but they can be reduced. Super easy with a bucket handsaw and a pair of handsnips. Take the top down a few whorls (1-5) depending on aesthetics and how concerned you are with reducing top leverage and then snip the top to make it retain its original shape (A-shapeish) and then go through with your snip and suck int hos branches as far as you feel comfortable doing. Wherever you make a cut, the laterals directly behind it on the branch will take charge. Then next year...you go back re-traint he top into a central leader, removing competing tops and then snip back the two shoots on every branch that elongated where you made the cut last year...IMO the only way to keep spruces small, due to lack of epicormic/dormant growth. If you have aethetic leeway then remove and entire branch if possible. Any bit of stress of the stem will help.


This is the way I would do it if I wanted to keep it. If it was at my house...cuter down no questions asked I hate spruces...


----------



## Greenleaf (Apr 3, 2008)

cb01 said:


> If you decide to remove it you could put some good ( 10,000 # ) ratchet binders on it as you go up. I would use at least 4. The IML resistogragh might be a good investment if you plan to do a lot of assesments like this. Is there any way to one cut it? Put the binders on and wack it. Replant



No chance of cutting it down in one shot, have powerlines in both directions I'd want to steer it to. Likely if they decide to go ahead with the removal I'll leave the lower canopy alone and cut a corridor to lower the top through. Makes it slower but will definitely reduce the forces on the truck when the top comes to bear on the line. May throw one strap around the base for security, but I'd really be surprised to see that peal open.

Thanks again for all of the feed back. Much appreciated.


----------



## treemandan (Apr 3, 2008)

850 plus around 150 for the stump. Oh? I thought we were bidding on it. What is the address? I will stick a flyer in the door.


----------



## treemandan (Apr 3, 2008)

Thillmaine said:


> I saw on of the posts that spruce are diffcult to work on and hard to reduce...I agree they SUCK to work on but they can be reduced. Super easy with a bucket handsaw and a pair of handsnips. Take the top down a few whorls (1-5) depending on aesthetics and how concerned you are with reducing top leverage and then snip the top to make it retain its original shape (A-shapeish) and then go through with your snip and suck int hos branches as far as you feel comfortable doing. Wherever you make a cut, the laterals directly behind it on the branch will take charge. Then next year...you go back re-traint he top into a central leader, removing competing tops and then snip back the two shoots on every branch that elongated where you made the cut last year...IMO the only way to keep spruces small, due to lack of epicormic/dormant growth. If you have aethetic leeway then remove and entire branch if possible. Any bit of stress of the stem will help.
> 
> 
> This is the way I would do it if I wanted to keep it. If it was at my house...cuter down no questions asked I hate spruces...



How about making it into a giant screw? Like a spiral stair case. It would be awesome with lights and a flag on to.


----------



## jomoco (Apr 3, 2008)

There are a few things about this funeral party that strike me as mighty peculiar.

First this talk of a spiral crack. I see the crack all right, but its only apparently limited to the bark and cambium, and it is relatively vertical not spiral to my eye at all. There is no visual indications that the heartwood or xylem structural supportwood is indeed cracked or weakened at all. This could easily be a case of bark damage sustained in the trees youth from rough handling by whoever transplanted it. It would be somewhat ironic to cut down a tree after its 30 years of diligent generation of cambial wound repair tissue sufficient to finally close the wound to weather, only to be whacked down for its remarkable ability to heal itself after being so seriously
scraped of skin in its youth.

Your assertion that the spruce in question here is 95 years old is highly questionable at best in my opinion. To my old experienced arborist eyes the tree is no more than 55 or 60 feet tall in your photo of it. My guess on it's maximum potential age is no more than 35 years old, with a very slight 10 degree lean downwind. This small degree of downwind lean is perfectly natural
and even expected in a solitary unsheltered spruce fighting the wind its whole life. 

Now the thing that really doesn't click for me in my old worn out brain, is your fear of this tree failing in the western prevailing and falling on the clients house. Now your post states that the crack faces west on the tension wood side of the tree, the crack faces the camera that the picture was taken with.
So the camera is pointing due east along the path 180 degrees off the crack itself, let's assume a huge howling wind came out of the west and actually blows this very tree over to the east, to my eye that lands it on top of the little bitty deciduous trees to the east, not on the house, the tree will miss the house by a whopping 24 inches or 2 feet easy!

Are you aware that there are laws against picking on abused juveniles?

Why are you bending over backwards to rationalize killing this pubescent teen?

If you really want to do what's best for the tree and customer, deadwood the tree for a reasonable fee and assure the client that it's a healthy tree with a slight natural lean to the east and an almost completely healed old wound.

I would have no qualms about drilling a half inch inspection hole right through just the bark and cambium only to ascertain visually if the crack actually penetrates the xylem or heartwood that gives this tree its structural integrity.
New cambium tissue will cover the shallow inspection hole in it in less than two years or so. Offer this to the client to reassure both him and yourself at a modest fee along with the deadwooding.

I hope you don't feel insulted by my observations, and remember they are only the opinions of a crusty old treeman with old climbers disease.

jomoco


----------



## treemandan (Apr 3, 2008)

jomoco said:


> There are a few things about this funeral party that strike me as mighty peculiar.
> 
> First this talk of a spiral crack. I see the crack all right, but its only apparently limited to the bark and cambium, and it is relatively vertical not spiral to my eye at all. There is no visual indications that the heartwood or xylem structural supportwood is indeed cracked or weakened at all. This could easily be a case of bark damage sustained in the trees youth from rough handling by whoever transplanted it. It would be somewhat ironic to cut down a tree after its 30 years of diligent generation of cambial wound repair tissue sufficient to finally close the wound to weather, only to be whacked down for its remarkable ability to heal itself after being so seriously
> scraped of skin in its youth.
> ...



You are right but it would be as much to prune it properly as it would to remove it. That tree is like a car labeled ' mechanics special' , if you can either afford to maintain or yoou can do it yourself than its OK.
It would really be a good job to prune it.
I figured 4 hours for 2 guys to put that tree on wheels and get it out, maybe an hour with the stump work, Hell, I 'd take the grindings.
At least that much time with poles and a top rope. Or just figure for a lift. I have done it many times. Once to a giant white pine.
I have seen enough trees like that broken out. Is it possible to be educated enough to know exact details how a tree like that is going to fall.


----------



## Nailsbeats (Apr 3, 2008)

treemandan said:


> Is it possible to be educated enough to know exact details how a tree like that is going to fall.



Good question Dan. Answer, no. Only after the insurance claim will you know exactly how it fell.


----------



## clearance (Apr 3, 2008)

Finally looked at the pics. No brainer, saw it down. Looks pretty easy even if you climbed it. Seems as if most of the branches can be cut and held, or cut and pushed. You could take big chunks, and fall a decent sized butt log as well. Big top, big chunks, big butt log. I say no more than two hours to strip and chunk, maybe less, weathers nice and cool, sharp 020 and off to the races. Have fun, be safe.


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Apr 3, 2008)

Nailsbeats said:


> Good question Dan. Answer, no. Only after the insurance claim will you know exactly how it fell.



LOL!!

Good question is right.

and good answer is left, BTW.

Greenleaf on site says it's got a good shot at hitting the house. 

Guy online says no it will miss by 24 inches. 

I say take her down and it won't do either, but provide a great opportunity for new life for a new tree....and no new insurance claims.


----------



## Greenleaf (Apr 3, 2008)

Going to give it the benefit of an increment bore, and talking to the previous owner before putting a saw to it just yet. But I had figured a 4 hour job with the cleanup if it comes to taking it down.

Jomoco the tree has 20% lean, and the top is plum line over a bedroom. Just took down a similar size tree in my front yard and counted the rings and that's where 95 years is coming from.


----------



## treesandsurf (Apr 4, 2008)

D Mc said:


> Remember try not to impose your opinions on the clients. State the facts. That is what they are looking for. Everyone's level of acceptable risk is different and balanced by different criteria. They need you to give them the facts and with those facts any decisions are *theirs* to make.



A voice of clarity! 


jp


----------



## Job Corps Tree (Apr 4, 2008)

*Hazard tree assessment*

AMF, just take it down. Plant new


----------



## Greenleaf (Apr 4, 2008)

I definitely take the approach of letting the owners decide on the course of action for the tree based on what we know for sure and what we don't know. Cored the tree this morning and didn't find any evidence of decay. I realize that the increment bore is a tool which gives you a very small glimpse into the interior of a tree. But I am feeling that the tree is still very sound, and like Jomco pointed out it does look like a wound that has closed over fairly well. That being said I don't have to sleep under it and therefore the people who do, or the tree owners (municipality) can decide from here.

Just looked at one of my neighbors spruce trees which was a lot easier to make a decision than this. Obvious but rot with rapid dieback occuring over the year. Nice easy flop and chop..


----------



## scottbaker (Apr 4, 2008)

My two bits =

Follow the protocol from the new ISA WCB Risk Assessor. Help the client make the management decision.

A quick test with a Resistograph will reveal the extent of the crack. IMO likely to be shallow crack. A shear crack (showing on both sides) is bigger issue. 

Cracks are common in conifers and don't often lead to decay problems.

The tree has recently had two winters with very strong winds (yes?)
Windthrow unlikely or not.?..check soils depth.

Pruning seems a legitimate option to get more service from this tree. Several options offered in posts could be considered. 

95 years seems like a good estimate and a good method used for basing the estimate....that's a long time in human terms. I think it is generally easier to cut a tree down than it is to use your skills to say that it is reasonable to retain. Professional liability insurance is a must for people in the risk assessment business.

I see a lot of trees cut down where an autopsy reveals that the property owner paid cash to reduce their property value by taking out a manageable tree that might take 95 years to replace.

Scott


----------



## jomoco (Apr 4, 2008)

Greenleaf said:


> I definitely take the approach of letting the owners decide on the course of action for the tree based on what we know for sure and what we don't know. Cored the tree this morning and didn't find any evidence of decay. I realize that the increment bore is a tool which gives you a very small glimpse into the interior of a tree. But I am feeling that the tree is still very sound, and like Jomco pointed out it does look like a wound that has closed over fairly well. That being said I don't have to sleep under it and therefore the people who do, or the tree owners (municipality) can decide from here.
> 
> Just looked at one of my neighbors spruce trees which was a lot easier to make a decision than this. Obvious but rot with rapid dieback occuring over the year. Nice easy flop and chop..



Hey there Greenleaf, tell me, do you know exactly what species of spruce this tree is? It most certainly is not a white spruce (Picea glauca).

Sounds like you're trying to do the right thing letting your client decide its fate after listening to your test results and professional input.

Good job!

jomoco


----------



## Greenleaf (Apr 5, 2008)

Picea engelmannii (Engelmann Spruce). They are very closely related to a white spruce.


----------



## BC WetCoast (Apr 5, 2008)

That crack sure looks like a frost crack to me. Very common on Interior Englemann spruce. 

A tree like that, using the WCB/ISA/Dunster methodology, is going to default to a high hazard. That is because the methodology overweights the size of the part that will likely fail (in this case the whole tree) and the target (the house) and underweights the probability of failure. So even if there was virtually no probability of failure, it will still rate as a high hazard. This holds for every tree that will hit a house or high use target. To me, it is a problem in the methodology.

I don't see a big risk in this tree. However, I would word my report to state that there are no indicators of root failure so a very low probablity of tree toppling. There is a higher probability of mid-stem snapping due to the presence of the crack, but you should do a couple of borings at the top of the crack to ensure there is no heart rot.

I would recommend deadwooding the tree and a 10-15% crown reduction.

I have always been taught in this type of situation to never state the tree is safe. Rather provide objective information on what you see and allow the decision maker (homeowner) to make their own informed decision. Everyone has a different tolerance of risk and will make their decisions accordingly.

To those who say this is a cop out, remember that doctors or lawyers never tell you what to do. They provide advice, alternatives and potential outcomes, the decision to do or not do something always belongs to the patient/client.


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Apr 5, 2008)

scottbaker said:


> My two bits =
> 
> Follow the protocol from the new ISA WCB Risk Assessor. Help the client make the management decision.
> 
> ...



Two comments for two bits.

First, if this tree were, say, in the big big back yard, then perhaps it would be considered a fair influence on greater property value. However, with the house in its very crosshairs, I beg to differ. Somebody made a comment about arborists being sort of like doctors and lawyers. I can agree to the extent that I believe they meant it, though in general I detest such a notion on general principle. Still, we need to step out of our diagnosis and desires to save trees a moment and consider the HO's perception( and safety) and those around them in general. If we are anything like doctors and lawyers in their minds, then the general perceptions are that we are just practicing arboriculture and prone to make just as many boneheaded decisions in our best interest financially and according to our idealisms.

I suppose I've said all of this to say that I can't imagine that this tree is an asset when it is so apparently a liability. If we are anything at all like doctors and lawyers, then the fact that we tinkered with it at all and said it is good _increases_ the liability.

Second comment, Professional liability insurance? Since when do insurance companies put people back together again as good as they were? Raise the dead?

Oh, that's right they don't, they can only pay to actually fix the house itself. It's likely the house will even be better than it was when it is all said and done. That would be a wonderful outcome, perhaps even increase the property value. Splendid...if they are at Disneyworld at the time.

When I see that a house is a target, I'm not thinking about all that is replaceable and repairable and saying: "well, if, with all *'my skills,'* I'm wrong(imagine that), that is what insurance is for." No, I'm thinking about the souls inside that doctors, lawyers, and arborists with snazzy insurance policies can't fix if 95 years of worthlessness and arborist arrogance comes crashing through day or night. 

Surely, we aren't so in love with 'our skills' (and trees, or rather what some want us to believe about them) and puffed with pride (arrogance x ignorance) as to think that this tree is a good prospect for salvation. Are we going to justify this with shallow justifications such as property values? Our egos?

How does this compare to human value?

I'd rather wait and watch a tree grow and see my little ones grow with it than to say I had a very nice 95 year old tree aimed at the house in my front yard, but now I have neither a house, nor tree, nor my little Malorie that I had just kissed goodnight. 

Forgive me, I just can't seem to wrap my brain, nor my heart around this line of thinking. Somebody help me out, if I'm off my lawn chair that I had made from the last home wrecking tree that never had a shot once my feet hit the ground on site.

Scott, I’m not picking on you personally, you are just going along with a certain ebb tide within the industry. It is to a couple of things you said that mirror or mimic a certain attitude that I see that I want to draw closer to the light.

I know that I’ve gone beyond two comments, but it is a couple main points that I want to finish addressing.



> “I think it is generally easier to cut a tree down than it is to use your skills to say that it is reasonable to retain. Professional liability insurance is a must for people in the risk assessment business.”



Look at this statement. First of all, it is easier, most no brainers are. It is easier for me, the HO and family, the insurance companies, the neighborhood, etc. 

So now then, this gentle gab at those that wouldn’t rather waste their skills and time on a 95 year old home wrecker is very revealing…to me anyway. Is this about doing the right thing, or about your skills…or in other words….about you…and your ideals? Seems to me your comment about insurance is right on the money in so many ways.

If it is so reasonable with all of your skills, then why the need for insurance. Because you and many others much smarter realize even with all of your skills it is a crap shoot, wherein if you lose someone else is very likely to loose bigger…..perhaps even unbearably so.

But hey, maybe you’re thinking you tried to save one more tree, which is so much more important to the greater good, right? Are these homes and endangered souls acceptable losses in the grand scheme of things?

I apologize, maybe I’m presumptuous with respect to your ideals, but so many marry their skills to their ideals, and thus their actions suspect. As a result, I can’t see anyone so bent on saving such a tree unless they were hornswoggled into some save the planet one tree at a time poppycock

If this doesn’t apply to you Scott, disregard, or rather…duck…there are so many others that I can’t hardly miss.

Lastly, why don’t so many so concerned apply their skills and go save trees like this that are countless out in the middle of nowhere where the casualties of their skills are NOT homes and homeowners, sons and daughters, dogs, cats, and goldfish and the like?

You guessed it…..there isn’t any money in it. So then we have a new dimension. A bizarre love triangle, if you will. The skills are married to the ideals with the wallet as the maid and the mistress. 

A removal only pays once?


----------



## jomoco (Apr 5, 2008)

Greenleaf said:


> Picea engelmannii (Engelmann Spruce). They are very closely related to a white spruce.



Thanks Greenleaf, that allowed me to do a little in depth research on Engelman spruce and their characteristics done by Robert R. Alexander.

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/picea/engelmannii.htm

After reading this in depth study, I feel I owe you an apology for accusing you of not giving an accurate age on this slow growing species of spruce, you were right and I should have kept my opinions on the subject limited to species of trees I have more direct knowledge of, again my apologies.


I highly suggest you read Mr. Alexander's in depth report on the characteristics of the Engelman spruce as I did. I can only apologize and say let the funeral proceedings begin.

Sorry Mr. 95 year old Engelman, but your chances of living to your senior age of 5-600 years old have become very very slim.

Thanks for prodding me to educate myself a bit more on high altitude trees and their survival characteristics.

Nothing more pitiful than an old fool thinking his learning ever stops or his ability to make a fool of himself ever diminishes.

jomoco


----------



## beowulf343 (Apr 5, 2008)

Bigus Termitius, can't rep you but that was one of the best posts i've read on here in a long time. My feelings exactly.


----------



## Stumpcutter1 (Apr 5, 2008)

I wouldn't want a freakin' tall spruce like that leaning toward my house without the crack.Took too many off houses over the years.
Put it this way what would you do if you tell them its safe,prune it,it cracks in half,hits the house and hurts or kills someone?


----------



## Greenleaf (Apr 5, 2008)

Thanks for that link Jomoco. After working in the forest industry for many years around here and seeing more than enough spruce uproot following the opening up of stands, I've had a good amount of respect for the ones left standing in town.

I submitted my report and outlined very clearly some of the facts we do know, and even clearer some of the uncertainty and potential consequences. The decision to remove or not should not be the owness of the assessor, however we definitely influence the decision to a large extent. Conducting assessments for the municipality in the past, when I hold any reservations about a tree they automatically default to removing the risk. Therefore I like to be really thorough and present as many facts, possibilities and uncertainties as I can find and let them make the call. Either way I gain work, and stand to gain more work when I show honesty and integrity in what I know and don't know. Personal and professional ethics are a big part in what we do. Will I tell a client that I think their trees are fine and don't need any work when I just drove 25 minutes out of my way to look at them, you bet. Because being honest might not line your pockets today, but in the long run I believe it will create a much more sustainable network of loyal clients, especially when you live in a small community and word of mouth is everything.


----------



## brandon (Apr 5, 2008)

*remove*

definite removal soft wood tree that close to a house/ bad lean and a crack. think about for a second then remove it.


----------



## treeseer (Apr 6, 2008)

Greenleaf said:


> I submitted my report and outlined very clearly some of the facts we do know, and even clearer some of the uncertainty and potential consequences. The decision to remove or not should not be the ones of the assessor,


That sounds responsible. I hope that you pointed out the lack of defects. Most of the calls here for removal are coming not from risk assessors but from removal specialists/salesmen, so they are worth what they cost.


:monkey:  :spam:


----------



## rbtree (Apr 11, 2008)

Good points by treeseer and Scott Baker. 

Spruce is a light wood, not exceptionally strong. The foliage is dense and heavy. Thus spruce are prone to trunk failure..as well as complete windthrow. However, that tree appears to have been standing relatively alone for years and thus should have developed good reaction wood and root strength, to conteract the prevailing winds.

Asssuming that crack is minor, as it appears to be, I'd keep the tree and thin the upper canopy by 40%. While crown reduction would be more effective, it is unsightly.


----------



## (WLL) (Apr 11, 2008)

if the tree does stay i think it would be a good canadate for lightning protection. if it were my house the tree would go and i would replant with some more safe and atractive trees. imo it looks dangerous and id get more sleep on them windy nights.


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Apr 12, 2008)

jomoco said:


> Are you aware that there are laws against picking on abused juveniles?
> 
> Why are you bending over backwards to rationalize killing this pubescent teen?



It's not a person, it's a tree. A nice tree, but just a tree. So far from equating to the value of a human life that to even CONSIDER keeping one that threatens human life is unthinkable to decent people.

Talking about animals and even PLANTS as if they were on the level of human life simply shows how little such people value human life.

Not to mention common sense.


And an estimate of a 2 foot miss is with a tree that size is, to a reasonable mind, an estimate of a likely hit.


----------



## nytreeman (Apr 12, 2008)

To even contemplate saving this tree would in my opinion be absurd!:jawdrop: 
I sure as hell wouldn't want it leaning towards my house!


----------



## BC WetCoast (Apr 12, 2008)

Frankly, I'm a little disappointed in the 'professionalism' displayed by some on this board. It points to the need for more education needed by people in the industry.

I understand that there will be differences of opinion on whether this tree is safe, but "it scares me to think of a leaning tree over a house" is not the professional way to evaluate this tree. I wonder if that is not the sales technique utilized.

In my opinion this tree should not be removed, and here is the logic behind my opinion:
- this tree was probably originally a forest tree, however, it has not been a forest tree in a very long time. Judging by the architecture of the house, I would say the subdivision was built in the '80's so the tree has been exposed for at least 20 years. My reading of the research indicates that within 6 years of exposure, a forest growing tree becomes as windfirm as an open grown tree. 
- If this tree has be exposed for the past ~20 years and has stayed upright, then what has changed in it's root system to increase the probability of uprooting. I don't see anything. So the probability of uprooting is the same this year as it was last year.
- the probability of a mid stem snap. Has this changed due to the crack? Maybe. Need to determine the cause of the crack. If it is just a frost crack, caused by a sudden cold snap, then there will be no change in the probability of a stem snap. If the crack is caused by internal wood shearing due to unusual bending forces (and possible heart rot), then the probability rises and removal should be considered. But this cannot be determined without some form of internal test (increment bore, resistograph).

The tree that Greenleaf removed from his yard. Although we don't know many of the details of it, my big concern with forked spruce is the tendency for one of the top stems to peel off.

If we are going to move the professionalism of arboriculture beyond that of just removal artists, then we need to educate ourselves to be able to read the signs and symptoms exhibited by the tree and surrounds and make recommendations and suggestions based on sound logic and science.

Just because you can climb, doesn't mean you're an arborist.


----------



## clearance (Apr 12, 2008)

BC WetCoast said:


> Frankly, I'm a little disappointed in the 'professionalism' displayed by some on this board. It points to the need for more education needed by people in the industry.
> 
> 
> If we are going to move the professionalism of arboriculture beyond that of just removal artists,
> ...



Now this, is the freakin' thing cut down yet, WTF is the holdup? 

I can climb, I am a utility arborist, certified, a recognized trade in this province, unlike an I.S.A. certified arborist, who has no trade standing whatsoever. Trade, like a plumber, a lineman, a heavy duty mechanic, someone who has proven they can do the work, not a textbook hero, person with a good short term memory. That being said, there are ISA certified guys who can climb, and climb very well, but unless they have taken the training I have, and are certified, they cannot do my job. 

"Removal artist", is that a complement or a slur? Hazard tree removal around powerlines, now that is the real deal, in my opinion. Flirting with disaster, especially when you have to cut down p.o.s. trees that should have been put to death long ago. Many ISA guys do nice work, but it ain't the same, I mean where are the powerlines in a park or someones yard?

I have seen my share of trees that failed, ripping down the powerline, or smashing a house. Hindsight they say is 20 20. When in doubt, take it out.


----------



## BC WetCoast (Apr 13, 2008)

clearance said:


> Now this, is the freakin' thing cut down yet, WTF is the holdup?
> 
> I can climb, I am a utility arborist, certified, a recognized trade in this province, unlike an I.S.A. certified arborist, who has no trade standing whatsoever. Trade, like a plumber, a lineman, a heavy duty mechanic, someone who has proven they can do the work, not a textbook hero, person with a good short term memory. That being said, there are ISA certified guys who can climb, and climb very well, but unless they have taken the training I have, and are certified, they cannot do my job.
> 
> ...



A plumber is not a mechanical engineer, a lineman not an electrical/power system engineer, hence a utility arborist is not a certified arborist. They have different roles to play. While a utility arborist, is definitely knowledgeable in the care of trees around powerlines:
From Industry Training Authority :
“_Utility Arborist” means a person who undertakes any work required to prune or clear vegetation in proximity* to energized electrical equipment, structures and conductors or who in the course of utility line clearing operations, prunes, falls or removes trees which could come into contract with energized power lines. _
Nowhere on the ITA website, under training content, is there any mention of hazard tree assessment and determination.

So, while I have no doubt about your skills as a climber and your ability to do tree work around powerlines, unless you have taken additional training in hazard tree assessments, being an utility arborist alone doesn't mean you have the knowledge to back up your opinion.

BTW, BC is in the process of instituting trade qualifications for residential tree workers.

According to the City of Coquitlam and other municipalities, an arborist is ONLY someone certified by the ISA.
http://e-civic.coquitlam.ca/cybercedms/getdoc.asp?doc=587610
Page 1 - definitions

City of Burnaby, only a certified arborist can prepare reports relating to the health assessment and the need to remove trees for the issuing of a tree cutting permit.
http://burnaby.fileprosite.com/contentengine/launch.asp

Before we get back into the old Certified arborists are full of cra*; no they aren't; yes they are arguments, remember opinions are like azzh*)es, everybody has one. However, the key is to back up the opinion with clear logic.


----------



## treeseer (Apr 13, 2008)

BC WetCoast said:


> Frankly, I'm a little disappointed in the 'professionalism' displayed by some on this board. It points to the need for more education needed by people in the industry.
> 
> I understand that there will be differences of opinion on whether this tree is safe, but "it scares me to think of a leaning tree over a house" is not the professional way to evaluate this tree. I wonder if that is not the sales technique utilized.
> 
> ...



That's all true, but "Need to determine the cause of the crack.... But this cannot be determined without some form of internal test (increment bore, resistograph)."

Wouldn't a mallet give an idea of the shape of and therefore the cause of the crack, and the associated risk?


----------



## BC WetCoast (Apr 13, 2008)

treeseer said:


> That's all true, but "Need to determine the cause of the crack.... But this cannot be determined without some form of internal test (increment bore, resistograph)."
> 
> Wouldn't a mallet give an idea of the shape of and therefore the cause of the crack, and the associated risk?




Good point that I failed to mention.


----------



## clearance (Apr 13, 2008)

BC WetCoast said:


> A plumber is not a mechanical engineer, a lineman not an electrical/power system engineer, hence a utility arborist is not a certified arborist. They have different roles to play. While a utility arborist, is definitely knowledgeable in the care of trees around powerlines:
> From Industry Training Authority :
> “_Utility Arborist” means a person who undertakes any work required to prune or clear vegetation in proximity* to energized electrical equipment, structures and conductors or who in the course of utility line clearing operations, prunes, falls or removes trees which could come into contract with energized power lines. _
> Nowhere on the ITA website, under training content, is there any mention of hazard tree assessment and determination.
> ...


Thank you, yes, I guess you are right, legally speaking. And so it goes. The WCB backed danger tree assesor course is of two days in length, with a test following. The ISA utility specialist is granted to someone who is in the ISA, who has worked in some way around power (only slashing or chipping here in B.C. as far as real work goes) for a while, then they take a multiple choice test.

Now, who is the better danger tree assesor, someone who has never ran a saw, never worn caulks, but has the ticket, or a faller who has worked on the coast for 20 years? The faller, because if he wasn't good at assesing danger trees he would be underground. But he hasn't taken the course.

So a utility guy, who has worked around power and bucked trees off the lines and roads after storms, who has cut down thousands of trees deemed to be hazardous by arborists working for Hydro has no standing?

Way I see it, the course is for the desk jockeys, those who drive the shiny white pickups. I would like to take it, but it really helps those who don't have practical experience the most. 

Now back to the old arborist deal, and its meaning, ok, fine, only ISA certification is allowed in decision making by some municipalities here. All that means is that they have to be ISA certified, a smart 12 year old can get ISA certified, so, it is there to impress the unknowing public, provide legitimacy, provide an illusion in some cases. "You can be a truck driver one week and an arborist the next"


----------



## treeseer (Apr 13, 2008)

clearance, I agree with most of what you say, but I am not sure that field experience always equips a risk assessor better than a test. The competent assessor has both field learning and book learning.


----------



## treemandan (Apr 13, 2008)

treeseer said:


> clearance, I agree with most of what you say, but I am not sure that field experience always equips a risk assessor better than a test. The competent assessor has both field learning and book learning.



But all it really takes is someone with some common sense sometimes. Say goodbye and replant a japanese maple, can't go wrong there, just don't forget to add 13 yards of mulch to it every year.
Do people actually get paid to think about things like this? Good thing I don't have anyone like that bossing me around. And people say I think to much.


----------



## nytreeman (Apr 18, 2008)

treeseer said:


> That sounds responsible. I hope that you pointed out the lack of defects. Most of the calls here for removal are coming not from risk assessors but from removal specialists/salesmen, so they are worth what they cost.



LMAO


----------



## hammerlogging (Apr 18, 2008)

Clearance-
Now, who is the better danger tree assesor, someone who has never ran a saw, never worn caulks, but has the ticket, or a faller who has worked on the coast for 20 years? The faller, because if he wasn't good at assesing danger trees he would be underground. But he hasn't taken the course.

Clearance-
Now back to the old arborist deal, and its meaning, ok, fine, only ISA certification is allowed in decision making by some municipalities here. All that means is that they have to be ISA certified, a smart 12 year old can get ISA certified, so, it is there to impress the unknowing public, provide legitimacy, provide an illusion in some cases. "You can be a truck driver one week and an arborist the next"

Hammer say:
Now, I totally agree with you. totally. Especially about how people with zero experience can be certified. But, unfortunately, this sort of evaluation (yours) qualifies as merely anecdotal. Sorry, cause my heart agrees with you, my common sense agrees with you, and it may not be fair, but objectivity, reducing all our combined knowledge, experience, common sense, and good judgement to quantifiable details makes it science. taking the anecdotal and making it scientific makes the knowledge transferrable across people, regions and languages. Damn, cause I sure prefer the anecdotal, the romantic, I hate it when I have to make myself wrong.


----------



## Specimen Tree (Apr 18, 2008)

It may just be the picture, but does the tree not have a symmetry to the trunk flare opposite the house? Girdling root? Root rot? I'd excavate that portion of the root system a bit to confirm.


----------



## capetrees (Apr 18, 2008)

anecdotal this, risk assessment that, climbers versus arborists, blah blah blah ...

Bottom line the tree is out of character for the area. The other tall trees in the area have been removed and lower deciduous trees are present. It had a good life, provided shade when needed but on the other hand, it created piles of pine needles, sapped the cars parked below it and now is leaning toward the house which is far more valuable than the tree. Pay the minimal amount to take it down compared to the huge number and the inconvenience of removing it from the living room some stormy night.


----------



## hammerlogging (Apr 18, 2008)

oh yeah, the point... I'd remove it. Without any of the science, based on common sense, but I bet Clearance, mine, and so many others common sense reflects the science anyhow, at least a very high percentage of teh time. Just discussing the merits of cetain decision making processes.


----------



## clearance (Apr 18, 2008)

hammerlogging said:


> Clearance-
> Now, who is the better danger tree assesor, someone who has never ran a saw, never worn caulks, but has the ticket, or a faller who has worked on the coast for 20 years? The faller, because if he wasn't good at assesing danger trees he would be underground. But he hasn't taken the course.
> 
> Clearance-
> ...



Great post, and thank you. So it has come down to two camps. The killers and the the huggers. And a couple of compromisers. 

I cut down trees for Hydro all the time, why do they spend money cutting down trees all the time? 'Cause they grow, thats the way it is, when they are a threat, be it to the line or life, saw it down.

Do you remember that movie Pulp Fiction? I love that part where buddy says "Do you know why I don't have a sign that says dead n****r storage"?
"No"
"Cause I ain't in the business of storing dead n***rs, thats why"

I ain't in the business of saving danger trees either.


----------



## BC WetCoast (Apr 19, 2008)

capetrees said:


> anecdotal this, risk assessment that, climbers versus arborists, blah blah blah ...
> 
> Bottom line the tree is out of character for the area. The other tall trees in the area have been removed and lower deciduous trees are present. It had a good life, provided shade when needed but on the other hand, it created piles of pine needles, sapped the cars parked below it and now is leaning toward the house which is far more valuable than the tree. Pay the minimal amount to take it down compared to the huge number and the inconvenience of removing it from the living room some stormy night.



Can you find Golden BC on a map without an index? Do you know the local ecotype and native species for the area? How do you know that tree is out of character for the area? I hope it isn't based on a photo that shows two yards at best. My experience in small town BC is that you will find many comparable species within that subdivision.

It's a spruce tree. Not likely to create many piles of pine needles.

It is not NOW leaning toward the house. It leaned toward the house 20-30 years ago. It is now straightening out and has been for many years.

There is a lot of talk about common sense. You cannot let "common sense" justify a lazy decision. Common sense dictated that man couldn't go to the moon or that a radio couldn't be built small enough to fit in a car. I given my opinion that the tree as shown in the pictures isn't hazardous, with my logic and it hasn't been refuted. I've got 30 years in the tree biz, so my common sense is as valid as the next guys. But if someone can show me where my observation and logic is wrong, I'll admit that I'm wrong. I'm willing to learn.

What I'm trying to say is that as professionals, we should not be condemning a tree without sound scientific logic. And 'someday it's gonna fall on the living room' is NOT sound scientific logic. To me it's a hack's sales pitch. Following that logic, every tree in every municipality over 8' should be removed. Ludicrous.


Just for the edification of others, Golden is a town of about 5000 people, supported by a Lousiana Pacific OSB mill, tourism as it's on the TransCanada Hwy and as a maintenance hub for CP Rail. It also has lots of outdoor recreation, a great place to live but limited business opportunities. As the mill goes, the town goes. It's a blue collar town with no real 'elite' neighbourhoods.

It's about 2 hours drive in any direction to the next town of any size (>1000 pop).


----------



## hammerlogging (Apr 19, 2008)

Pretty funny clearance.

BC, my intention was to suggest that technically your methodology is correct and that your conclusions are there for more valid.
Is the saying, "do as I say, not as I do"? I don't have the science of this kind to evaluate, haven't gotten to that methodology yet. But, based on reputation, experience, and so forth, folks like clearance and I are hopefully still providing a service to the community and individuals.


----------



## Greenleaf (Apr 19, 2008)

To date the tree is still standing.

As I had mentioned in an earlier post, my report to the municipality outlined that the tree is not in imminent danger of failing under normal circumstances. However there are some defects (seen both by common sense, and following the hazard tree criteria) which ultimately raises the risk level of the tree (defects+target=risk). It is now up to the owner of the tree (they are still trying to determine if it is a town tree or not) to decide what their acceptable threshold of risk is. 

I just returned last week from the Urban Tree Risk Assessment course in Coquitlam. Applying all of the methodology from the course aligned with my original assessment. The tree is placed as a high risk. For those who have taken this course it was scored as follows (prob. of failure=2, size of defective part=3, target rating=3). This gives the tree a score of 8 out of 12, with 10-12 being a tree in imminent danger of failing and action would be required immediately. Keep in mind that all trees pose some level of risk unless they are stumps. So a typical healthy tree with a target will likely score a 3 without any visible defects.

Clearance, no question that utility guys are some of the most competent tree climbers around. I hold a great amount of respect for the trade. That still doesn't make you an expert on trees, nor does having an ISA certification. Anyone who wants to pretend that they know it all will ultimately be stung hard at some point in their career. Keep in mind though that all of those trees you are cutting for hydro with shiny orange dots were first looked at by an assessor who would have put the exact same process as I've used here to use to identify those trees. I have been doing assessments for hydro as well, and I would have scored this tree the same and likely given to my BC Hydro rep to make the ultimate decision. I'll run it by him to see what he'd say if it were beside the line.


----------



## Nailsbeats (Apr 19, 2008)

What I'm trying to say is that as professionals, we should not be condemning a tree without sound scientific logic. And 'someday it's gonna fall on the living room' is NOT sound scientific logic. To me it's a hack's sales pitch. Following that logic, every tree in every municipality over 8' should be removed. Ludicrous. QUOTE.



Hack sales pitch my A$$. When you tell someone a tree is a hazzard and it should be removed you only get paid once. It's not a repeat business situation for the tree. 

When you bring out your bore tool climb the thing with a microscope in one hand and a textbook in the other, tell them you should tinker with this and that over a period of a few visits, who's really running the sales pitch here. The arborist doing that is just filling up his appointment book to line his pockets, he doesn't care about the family sleeping under the tree and their well being, (including saving them money) only about "Science" and making himself look smart along with making himself money. 

The Spruce tree in question has nothing in common with 8' municipality trees.
Seems to me your science has done a 180 on common sense. Ludicrous indeed.


----------



## Greenleaf (Apr 19, 2008)

The point is that an assessment should be a standardized, systematic approach to quantifying how much risk a tree poses. The decision to remove should not lie with the assessor. Nailsbeats, you are right, I don't have to sleep under it so I'm not going to be the one making the call. Nothing ludicrous about quantifying the risk so that a homeowner can weigh all the options, rather than having a saw wielding assessor tell them that it needs to go?


----------



## clearance (Apr 19, 2008)

Greenleaf said:


> To date the tree is still standing.
> 
> As I had mentioned in an earlier post, my report to the municipality outlined that the tree is not in imminent danger of failing under normal circumstances. However there are some defects (seen both by common sense, and following the hazard tree criteria) which ultimately raises the risk level of the tree (defects+target=risk). It is now up to the owner of the tree (they are still trying to determine if it is a town tree or not) to decide what their acceptable threshold of risk is.
> 
> ...


Good post, I don't know it all, not even close, my trip is the same as some of your buddies, when in doubt, take it out, lots of trees around. Thank you for acknowledging my trade, I ain't the best CUA around, but I have learned from some really good guys, and I try to follow thier example. 

About the assesments by B.C. Hydro, we in the field question thier calls sometimes, but very rarely do we say a tree should stay. More like "how come that p.o.s. is staying". They only have so much in thier budget, they should quit giving grants to people, and spending money on other non essentials untill they get the pine beetle disaster cleaned up (among other things), in my opinion. About the ownership of this tree, can they not get a surveyor to come over and look?


----------



## capetrees (Apr 19, 2008)

OMG!!!Just take the thingdown!!! :angry2:


----------



## treeseer (Apr 19, 2008)

Greenleaf said:


> the tree is not in imminent danger of failing ...The tree is placed as a high risk. For those who have taken this course it was scored as follows (prob. of failure=2, size of defective part=3, target rating=3). This gives the tree a score of 8 out of 12,... a typical healthy tree with a target will likely score a 3 without any visible defects.
> .


Actually, a perfect big tree in a crowded place would be an 8, wouldn't it? I thought 8 was a moderate rating.

I like the 20-point system, more useful.

Did Dunster lead the Coquitlam session?


----------



## Ekka (Apr 20, 2008)

It's good to see the usual brawls breaking out.  In that spirit I'll give my answers and stir you up coz you darn well need it!

*1. VTA Tree Assessment*

Now, coz Dendro hasn't been to the optometrist I did some work to point a few things out.

In this pic I notice the crack actually goes to ground. This happens a lot.

There is a slight twist in the crack. My red arrows show the way the tree was twisting for that crack to to appear. The blue arrow shows the wind direction with of course some occasional swing and buffeting.

Now if you look in the background, there's a topped job with same ugly lean and bias ... much bigger hazard too by the looks so get ya azz down there for more work.  







The basal flare road side (same side as crack) shows that is the windward side. On the pic below note the red area, that indicates the tension on a buttress other than the one the crack was near.






Now WTF do you want to go drilling and coring for, you wankers yet to learn VTA?

The tree is talking to you so loud and clear I can hear it 13K miles away, hazard tree evaluations my azz, text book jockeys and wankers more like it.  

The tree and surroundings have SPELLED it out big time what has happened and what will continue happening.

The crack shows the tree's integrity was breached. 

CAPICHE!

It is now in repair mode. 

*2. Blow overs and up rootings.*

Rarely, and I am yet to see 1 where the soil upheaved is more than say 2.5m from the trunk. You can pretty well guarantee regardless of tree size that 3m is absolute worst case scenario. Big wad of soil goes over with tree roots dangling out of it.

If soil is wet and high winds prevail then it will be interesting to see how many tree huggers are required to hold it up.

Many trunks that break off from high wind rather than the tree blowing over occur within 6m of the ground. That is the high stress area and matches the crack on the tree

Does the windy period coincide with the wet period?

Are the strongest winds pretty much in the same direction as the blue arrow?

If you answered yes to both then would you want to live under that tree? Perhaps.

*3. Recommendations*

In the event of retention being desirable I offer the following advice.

*3.1* Since we know that the root plate failure will occur within a 2.5m radius then we need to know how deep the soil is and what it is. Regardless of the outcome being rock, shale or clay increasing the penetration of striker roots to greater depths means opening up "cores" for them to travel. This can be done by drilling, jack hammer etc where a 3' deep core hole perhaps 1" to 2" dia filled with very coarse sand may invite roots to greater depths. One "core" per 2'2 should be sufficient. Do not put fertilizer or water down these holes, air is the secret ingredient.

*3.2* Reduce wind sail effect by thinning. This will be less injurious and deforming than topping however the key is to remove branches toward the top rather than the bottom. The tree's VTA shows you the density, for the visually impaired I have broken it into 3 segments as shown in the pic below.

The top section (1) needs more thinning than section 2 and no thinning section 3. CAPICHE! I would guess that around 1/3 (33%) of the top section being section 1 branches be removed , and around 1/5 for section 2 (20%). Branches to be cut to target and equally spaced removal.






*3.3* Remove the grass and have a light mulched area. The further the mulching extends from the tree the better. Mulch should be of coarse grade as it allows water to easily penetrate and provides better air circulation which roots need.

*3.4* Improve soil with natural fertilizers, blood and bone, seasol etc ... work especially hard on areas outside the 2.5m dia on the windward side to increase root strength and travel.

*3.5* Apply a growth regulator or retardant. Beside slowing growth they induce more root mass, a strong advantage for leaning trees.

------------------------------​
In the spirit of leaning trees I present to you this vastly larger and greater leaning tree which is a hoop pine in Brisbane, some 160'+ tall and 145 years old.






And oh yes, it has a crack.







Why is it when a scientist observes something it becomes scientific evidence, but when the layperson observes the same it's anecdotal?


----------



## treeseer (Apr 20, 2008)

Eric your prescription for thinning--10% would do a lot-- and aeration are very good. I'd rather fill the holes with more than sand, but air is key. 

Nice work with the graphics. How's that hoop pine doing?

"when a scientist observes something it becomes scientific evidence" because the people who read about that observation repeat it like scripture instead of like an observation.


----------



## Ekka (Apr 20, 2008)

10%

Poppycock. :hmm3grin2orange: That's the sort of discount a wannbe sale offers you, I dont go out of my way for 10%.

33% is 1/3 of the top section only and that is better than topping which some have already mentioned. The top is smaller anyway and more virile, that will slow it down some.

I would say if the tree looked about as "dense" all over as the bottom section I'd be happy. Could also be camera tricks as we look up the branches seem to get more bunched up ... either way it gives the arborist something to work toward. Winds are faster higher, that top will expand in due course. 

We see a lot of busted tops here, half way down that top red box (marked 1) is about the spot they bust.

That other tree is going OK I suppose, I just happened to be wandering around and saw it. Good thing about pines is they ooze sticky resin out and seem to hold off decay ... but we dont have the aggressive pine beetle here either.

I did say fill the holes with sand ... but do try to rough up the sides of those holes, a glazed potters finish is good for the art gallery but not the tree.  

Maybe one of those utility arborists could show us how it's done. :monkey:


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Apr 27, 2008)

scottbaker said:


> I see a lot of trees cut down where an autopsy reveals that the property owner paid cash to reduce their property value by taking out a manageable tree that might take 95 years to replace.



What is that bumper sticker that Tom D. likes?

"It takes a hundred years to grow a hundred year old tree"

Even if you could provide the perfect environment for a new tree to grow in, and it grew at its optimal rate, it would take 40-50 years to replace what is there.


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Apr 27, 2008)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> What is that bumper sticker that Tom D. likes?
> 
> "It takes a hundred years to grow a hundred year old tree"
> 
> Even if you could provide the perfect environment for a new tree to grow in, and it grew at its optimal rate, it would take 40-50 years to replace what is there.



The ultimate in delayed gratification? ....perhaps not.

How long does it take to grow a new family member? How long does it take to get over losing a family member? Especially to something so obviously avoidable?

Let's investigate some other interesting time tables.

I find it interesting just how little time it does take to bring one of these home wreckers down. Relatively no time.

What else? It even takes less time to make the assessment and commit. (provided one is not some over propagandized idealist) 

But what is even quicker than all of this? 

The few seconds it takes to come crashing down onto targets unaware if left alone to produce what??

What? What weight are we willing to place on the balance that we _think_ can offset?

I've got a new bumper sticker idea:

It takes 100 years to replace a 100 year old tree, but it takes about an hour to bring it down and put it to better use if it's threatening me or mine! HAZARD TREES KILL!
Call your local pro human life arborist today, and let our children plant the replacement trees of their future.

Now granted, this would be more like a bumper banner, but hey, something has got to offset the fast food one liners corrupting otherwise sound minds.


----------



## D Mc (Apr 27, 2008)

You know guys, I have been in this business a long time. I have removed more than my fair share of trees. So whereas I am a tree advocate my 660 says I'm not a "tree hugger". But I am amazed by the amount of arborphobic responses in this thread. 

I have worked in many neighborhoods where virtually every tree would be considered "hazardous" based on current criteria. Hundred feet tall over residential, high target and traffic areas, etc. Be it as some of these neighborhoods were in Berkeley, California, what do you think the response of the people would have been if it was proposed that they should cut all of their trees down because it would be safer for them and their families? 

We all have our own tolerances to the dangers life presents. 

You live your life by the choices you make. 

D Mc


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Apr 27, 2008)

D Mc said:


> You know guys, I have been in this business a long time. I have removed more than my fair share of trees. So whereas I am a tree advocate my 660 says I'm not a "tree hugger". But I am amazed by the amount of arborphobic responses in this thread.
> 
> I have worked in many neighborhoods where virtually every tree would be considered "hazardous" based on current criteria. Hundred feet tall over residential, high target and traffic areas, etc. Be it as some of these neighborhoods were in Berkeley, California, what do you think the response of the people would have been if it was proposed that they should cut all of their trees down because it would be safer for them and their families?
> 
> ...




I believe it is about doing what you can, when and where you can. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was it brought down in a day. 

Just because we cannot do something about all hazardous trees, doesn't mean we ought to leave them all to chance, or to those mind bent on saving them all despite their well meaning efforts and marginal success.

It is interesting to consider the efforts on all sides, despite ones opinion. Besides obvious needful removals that we all could agree on, some do save some hazardous trees from failure, others take them out before they fail.

We all pray the ones that slip through the cracks of our cohesive efforts do nothing more than destroy that which can be replaced.

As time goes on hopefully we can work together to narrow that gap from both sides.

I always keep in mind that a hazard tree removed doesn't fall and is often put to better use, and a newly planted tree better cared for with modern (and future for that matter) techniques stands a better chance at producing aesthetic and functional results far superior and safer than what no longer had any business looming.


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Apr 27, 2008)

Ekka said:


> Maybe one of those utility arborists could show us how it's done. :monkey:



I like your ideas, obviously some of the best yet. You have shown a fine example of what is possible when all goes well.

However, there is no sense in digging holes and taking chances with a tree like this, IMHO. Past success doesn’t insure you, not to mention it seems your example is in a more acceptable location.

If I'm going to dig a hole it will be to plant the proper tree for the proper place. And I _can_ show you how that is done. I’ve been planting trees since I was a kid with some success as I explored the results from 20 some year old efforts just this weekend.

The all too convenient misconceptions about utility arborists are that we are ignorant hacks and could care less about trees. Well, I’d say to a great extent from what I’ve seen and surmised that, historically speaking, we got it honest.

Howbeit many of us love trees for all they are and would rather promote this attitude right along with education. I deal with landowners as an uninvited guest daily. That takes a few skills to overcome obvious objections as you might imagine. It’s a member owned cooperative here, so peaceful negotiations are paramount to production. I find that besides a professional appearance and attitude, educating the landowner and expressing a genuine care for the trees that must be dealt with is crucial to building positive lasting relationships.

My point of contact with the electric company, a forestry and right of way specialist, feels the same way. He just did plant 1000 trees on his own time. He’s a good steward on and off the job. He’s a mentor with 25 years in the industry, again, both on and off the ROW.

As I go I’m constantly learning more as I’m committed to the industry in all areas. I learn on the job, from my personal studies, and from my peers. This forum has been a wealth of information with regard to what is good, bad, and ugly within the current paradigm of International Arboriculture. I’m raising a family up into it as well. It gets into your blood as you well know.

My perspective is that the utility sector needs professionals to turn things around for the better. I do purpose to be a part of that. 

So cut us some slack Ekka, we aren’t all ignorant hacks because we don’t see the use in saving high risk trees with their crosshairs on high value and irreplaceable targets.

I do what is best to salvage as many trees as I can in a days time given their circumstances, but I certainly know what needs to be done when they pose an unacceptable threat.

Sure, aesthetically, despite my artistic efforts, my patients are disfigured relative to the norm, perhaps ugly…..but they live and produce that which more than offsets those that are no longer. Aesthetics, or lack thereof, shouldn’t be the standard by which we UAs are judged. We save a lot of productive trees despite how they look. If looks be the standard with all things where would some of us be? 

:greenchainsaw: 

Yet how many productive trees are discarded at the hand of residential arborists based on either the aesthetical opinion or simple lack of desire for the tree on the part of the landowner? Wherein can one sector judge another?

One prunes for aesthetics and health, but often does some things that they’d rather not do to please the customer. Another prunes to allow for what’s needful for the coexistence of man and tree, also doing sometimes what we'd rather not. It’s an unpopular cusp that we ride, but many do their best to prune with health and aesthetics in mind for many reasons as well. We have to take what we know and apply that to many unique situations and decide what is best overall, wherein neither extreme is acceptable.

I find any approach in saving such a tree as the one in question to be an unacceptable and irresponsible extreme. Yet, on the other hand, I find excellent efforts such as you outlined very acceptable and responsible for similar trees in other locations and situations.

Perhaps it is difficult to minimize the emotional factors involved here, but I’d rather error on the side in the interest of human life, than that clouded by monetary, propagandized, and/or egotistical judgment.

Even so, could it be that some of this same sort of judgment strives to pile utility arborists into one convenient stake? Likely. 

In which case no one has a monopoly on ignorance.


----------



## treeseer (Apr 28, 2008)

Ekka I agree with the <= 33% off zone 1 and a little off elsewhere, which would be about 10% overall.

Bigus, good points, but your perception of risk tolerance is way different as a utility guy. I've been out of utility for 30 years so I couldn't advise on trees/utilities very well, as I have taken on-- for good and for bad-- a residential arborist viewpoint, where the owner has a higher risk tolerance.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Apr 28, 2008)

> simple lack of desire for the tree on the part of the landowner?



Here we come back to the owner being the final decision maker. 

My problem with a lot of the replies here is "take it down" so many want to convince the potential client that it is a high risk.

The original poster was called in to do a risk assessment, if this is what you are doing, then to say that the risk is higher then a normal tree is truthful. To say it is more likely to come down in adverse conditions is all so truthful.

There is no indication of deary, no indication of compromised root plate (in the pictures), the throw looks old and stabilized. The tree has experienced high winds in the past two seasons without further throwing.

All trees can fail under the wrong conditions, should they all be cut down because they are big enough to fall on the house?

I'll recommend a tree come down if the defect will only get worse and increase the risk of failure over time, but I cannot see that here.

If all you do is walk up and say cut it down, then you are not consulting, but make a sales pitch.


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Apr 28, 2008)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Here we come back to the owner being the final decision maker.
> 
> My problem with a lot of the replies here is "take it down" so many want to convince the potential client that it is a high risk.
> 
> ...



I've come across many potential customers that would like to hire me on the weekends to remove trees that aren't threatening anything and in apparently good health. The reasons vary. I'm talking big beautiful backyard trees shading the house and yard with nothing wrong...even some big enough and close enough to fall on the house given the right extreme conditions, yet not at all threatening otherwise. 

This is where even I cringe and hesitate. This is what I meant by the question you've quoted. 

It does come down to the landowner, whether we like that sometimes or not.

I wouldn't have to twist anyone’s arm _or mind _to convince most anyone that this tree is in fact high risk, this has been established.

I would think that someone would have to work pretty hard to minimize the risk perception and convince the homeowner to keep it. That to me is neither more or less consulting, but a sales pitch. A horse of a different color, but a horse nonetheless. 

In reality, perhaps it is all a consultive sales pitch according to one's perception with respect to ideals and levels of acceptable risk.

In this instance, in step with your comments here, in consulting it is also truthful to say that more than likely when this one does come down it will hit the house.

I would agree that it appears stabilized. I don't think that anyone here believes that neither butterfly nor bird is going to be the straw that breaks this camel's back.

When it breaks and it will, it will most likely be thanks to the winds that threw it in the first place. All too often the risk of failure increases over time at one rate or another. We hope it gives some warning signs, many do not. 

It's simply the target that condemns this tree more than anything, obviously.

I hope the basement is finished, furnished, and well used, if nothing else in high winds. I will pray for their safety, if they do keep it, and I hope that it is not at an eventual unacceptable cost.


----------



## tree MDS (Apr 28, 2008)

File,file,tink,tink,file,file,tink..tink. Lol.


----------



## nytreeman (Apr 28, 2008)

Yes ultimately the homeowner does have the final decision and heres some pics I had posted in another thread a couple of falls ago. A 100 ft norway spruce I had warned a repeat customer about, no signs of rot from observation,giant buttressed,root flair,looked like a very strong tree but the tree had a *very* old,mostly healed crack,and even striking it with a sledge it didn't sound like it was,very,if at all hollow,but near the ground you could see it was seeping water after the rains and it had a good lean into the prevailing (west) wind but still it was aimed directly at the house and after observing many ants on and around the tree,I recommended removal and did so each time I had worked for her but she refused saying "she loved her giant tree",well then we got the tail end of a hurricane coming from the southeast and.......
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=50527&d=1178289383
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=50528&d=1178289427
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=50529&d=1178289478
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=50531&d=1178289621
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=50532&d=1178290220
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=70015&stc=1&d=1209406485


----------



## tree MDS (Apr 28, 2008)

Dude, thats awesome, just what I was daydreaming about earlier, I was thinking: wont that crack end up like a frost crack that will never heal, and what about ice and water getting into it? wont that cause some sort of brown fungal rot over time (as that what trees in the pine family get) and bugs enter?? and then...nice posting there bud, and again,file,file,tink,tink. Evedently her giant tree did'nt love her too much, lol.


----------



## nytreeman (Apr 28, 2008)

Heres a few more of the rot,I knew it had to be to some degree rotted,but I was really amazed the extent of it,in the trunk there still was a substantial amount holding but at about 2 ft up from the base to below ground level everything was rotted away and honeycombed by the ants,there was only 2-3 inches of wood left in spots beneath the cambium holding that 100 ft+ tree up at a 15 to 20 % lean


----------



## nytreeman (Apr 28, 2008)

Greenleaf said:


> The tree has substantial lean >20% towards house, with no visible rooting problems, ie. no lifting root mat etc. From a distance the tree is correcting itself 'sweep'. The reason why I was contacted to look at the tree is because someone noticed a spiral crack (not open) which is on the windward/ tension side of the tree. Banged the tree with a mallet and it sounds like it is sound, and it appears that there is callus forming around the crack/fissure.


_*this could of been exact description of the tree above too !!!!*_


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Apr 28, 2008)

That "big fat buttress" right next to the sidewalk, could be a sign of reaction wood over decay. There are some horizontal cracks in the bark that often indicate fiber separation underneath.

I cannot see it well, but the upper canopy looks like it is showing signs of decline. Another indicator of possible root problems.

The maple behind it looks like it has elephants foot on the sidewalk side of it's base.

Big old trees right by sidewalks can be scary.


----------



## Ekka (Apr 30, 2008)

There's a distinct difference in the two scenarios.






The proximity of the side walk straight away should raise alarm bells. The bellowing out of the lower trunk is the second clue and the crack stops where there's a distinct difference in the bellowing.

That would have warranted a drill test (resistograph) and root flare inspection and test.

Also there was no pruning done that I could see. Going back to what I originally stated for the thread subject tree a 30% thinning of this tree's upper 1/3 of canopy and more thinning down the trunk. Maybe Treeseer would re-evaluate his low dosage now.

So what you had here was a grossly misdiagnosed tree with no remedial works at all ... darn near negligence!

To know there's a problem is one thing, to do nothing about it is stupid.

Big Termite, for the record the tree in my pic back one page is in high traffic and target area, carpark, bus stop and university main entrance. I would say 10K+ people traffic with stationary targets in addition to that ..... 18 hours a day.  

However the tree is relatively "thinned" compared to the trees shown here but what branches it does have are way longer.


----------



## Bigus Termitius (Apr 30, 2008)

Ekka said:


> Big Termite, for the record the tree in my pic back one page is in high traffic and target area, carpark, bus stop and university main entrance. I would say 10K+ people traffic with stationary targets in addition to that ..... 18 hours a day.
> 
> However the tree is relatively "thinned" compared to the trees shown here but what branches it does have are way longer.



I would have never guessed, Sunday morning picture? There's not a soul in the pics, no sleeping children anyway.

I'll take your word for it; I was thinking that it was parked on an estate somewhere where the owner has more money than commonsense.

So this one is in whose care, Brisbane? The university?

It is a grand tree alright, it'll be a shame to lose it, but I suppose they'll manage to get along without it someday.

Since it does get so much attention, perhaps they'll be able to head disaster off at the pass. Do you suppose I'll hear about it if they don't?

Nevertheless, success, for the moment, in Brisbane doesn't speak for all leaners everywhere, obviously. I'd say most speak very loudly to the contrary.

Howbeit, hindsight is always 20/20. Even when it is simple as saying to yourself, "I knew I shouldn't have taken the bus this morning."


----------



## Ekka (Apr 30, 2008)

Yeah, Brisbane City Council's care.

I'd be thinning it some, the top 1/2 anyway.

Eventually all trees return to earth, get a big tower next to that one to work on it.


----------



## nytreeman (Apr 30, 2008)

nytreeman said:


> Heres a few more of the rot,I knew it had to be to some degree rotted,but I was really amazed the extent of it,in the trunk there still was a substantial amount holding but at about 2 ft up from the base to below ground level everything was rotted away and honeycombed by the ants,there was only 2-3 inches of wood left in spots beneath the cambium holding that 100 ft+ tree up at a 15 to 20 % lean



pics must have been to big here they are smaller


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Apr 30, 2008)

Still way too big


----------



## nytreeman (Apr 30, 2008)

Ekka said:


> There's a distinct difference in the two scenarios.
> 
> 
> The proximity of the side walk straight away should raise alarm bells. The bellowing out of the lower trunk is the second clue and the crack stops where there's a distinct difference in the bellowing.


Actually the crack was about 15 ft long and went right to the base at ground level right through the big flair,the tree had the lean for a long long time because it had a long curve where it had gradually corrected over the years,at the time we had counted the rings on the tree above the rot and it was at least 115-120 years old,no lifting of the walk showed,no surface roots,the crack was totally closed,heavily callused,I agree more investigation could have shown the extent of the rot but regardless she didn't want the tree removed.


Ekka said:


> So what you had here was a grossly misdiagnosed tree with no remedial works at all ... darn near negligence!
> To know there's a problem is one thing, to do nothing about it is stupid.


 Even though I had repeatedly advised her of the importance of removing this tree ,she was more concerned with the closer trees that were "more problematic" at the time so I had her sign off on it.If there is negligence involved it certainly wasnt on my part.
Her house was surrounded by tall trees,probably planted around or shortly after the time the house was built,it was originally an old farm house with hewn pegged beams the deed goes back to 1850,the town she is in is Clinton Ny a very old college town,home of Hamilton college full of 100+ yr old trees many of which are protected,even some of the sidewalk blocks have the years in them many going back into the 1800,s. There was a 125 ft 150 yr old multi leaderd Austrian pine next to her driveway that was in decline dropping limbs and pitch,and cones and had already damaged there cars,I had trimmed it several times before it was removed,several huge spruces,that also were next to the house,a huge dying ash leaning towards the neighbors,a giant hollow black cherry behind her house all dead dying or damaged trees,dead maples in the hedgline.I've removed about 15 huge trees from her 2 acres and still to this day on the other side of the driveway there are still two more Norways that lean towards her house ,right next to the sidewalk I have advised her should be thinned plus a giant dying sugar maple which needs removal.Each one has the potential to cause significant damage to her house but if they don't want the work done even after being advised what can you do??


----------



## BlueRidgeMark (Apr 30, 2008)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Still way too big




Yep.


www.xnview.com

Free. Easy. Do it.

OR,

www.imageshack.us

Spare the poor guys on dial up! Shrink your photos!


----------



## nytreeman (Apr 30, 2008)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Still way too big



sorry edited the post and resized them again


----------



## Ekka (Apr 30, 2008)

Nytreeman,

So she does nothing and tell me, was it the insurance company that picked up the tab for the damage?

If so, send them the link to this thread so they can see how stupid their risk assessment is.

There's an ole saying over here, *"ignore it then claim it on insurance."*


----------



## Greenleaf (Apr 30, 2008)

Was contacted today by both the homeowner and the town. Because the tree lies right on the street right of way boundary and resident property line they made a joint decision to remove the tree. We will be taking it down next week.

This has been interesting to see so many points of view when it comes hazard assessments.


----------



## clearance (Apr 30, 2008)

Greenleaf said:


> Was contacted today by both the homeowner and the town. Because the tree lies right on the street right of way boundary and resident property line they made a joint decision to remove the tree. We will be taking it down next week.
> 
> This has been interesting to see so many points of view when it comes hazard assessments.



Good, be carefull, and have fun.


----------



## nytreeman (Apr 30, 2008)

Ekka said:


> Nytreeman,
> 
> So she does nothing and tell me, was it the insurance company that picked up the tab for the damage?
> 
> ...


I totally agree with you Ekka it's ridiculous,you bet the insurance paid I know the estimate of the damage to the house was around $ 35,000.00 and $2,000.00 for me to take the tree off the house.If they had had it removed in the first place I would have charged them $1,600.00 including the stump but now they have a nice brand new wall, roof,siding etc.
thats why our homeowners insurance goes up and up ...............


----------



## Ekka (Apr 30, 2008)

Yep, people here think as long as they dont get hurt their better off with them falling down, only costs them the excess (deductable).

Greenleaf, when you cut it down take some pics of the lower basal cuts, see what that crack is all about.


----------



## Bigus Termitius (May 3, 2008)

Ekka said:


> Yeah, Brisbane City Council's care.
> 
> I'd be thinning it some, the top 1/2 anyway.
> 
> Eventually all trees return to earth, get a big tower next to that one to work on it.



Would that then become the Leaning Tower of Brisbane? 

Why not? Worked out well for that long lost tree of Pisa.


----------



## Ekka (May 4, 2008)

I meant tower as in bucket truck.


----------



## Greenleaf (May 15, 2008)

Finally got around to dealing with the debated cracked spruce.

Skinned up one side of the tree on ascent to lessen the forces on the stem during top removal. Had hoped to send a fairly big top, but as I got up into it it had multiple leaders and having a new ground guy on the rope figured I'd send a couple smaller ones to get him honed in on rigging.

We blocked it down to a good size and pulled it across the road against the lean using a 5:1. From the pics you can see the extent of the crack running almost right through the full diameter. Some discoloration doesn't show up very well in the photos, but some early signs of decay setting in. Figure this crack formed about 2 years ago from talking with some of the neighbors who have noticed it. Unfortunately I blundered and didn't set down some pieces for the butt to bounce on and put a crack in the cement garden retainer


----------



## clearance (May 15, 2008)

Its done. A bit curious about you stripping of one side of the branches first. Tree had to go but it seemed no problem to climb, at all. I climbed a dead Doug fir beside the powerline the other day, just strip and chunk, your tree was alive, so whats up? From the pictures you posted earlier it looked like you could have blown off the whole thing with no or very little rigging. Not dissing you, maybe there was something I missed. But then again, I am known as a risk taker to some, no guts, no glory. 

Main thing is its down, good one Green.


----------



## Greenleaf (May 16, 2008)

To tell you the truth this is the first time I ever took a tree out by stripping only one side of it. A couple of years ago I took one of the arbormaster courses and it was discussed to dampen and reduce stress on the spar. It was definitely a pain in the ass stripping and chucking on the way back down. The top of the tree was not too far off line with the corner of the house...rigged the top and cut a few chunks and rapped down limbing on the way. Doubt I'll use it again unless you had to stop a top dead it has it's advantages.


----------



## Ekka (May 16, 2008)

Good on you.

Least the crack was orientated well for the felling notch and back cut.

How come you couldn't fell it whole? Looks like vacant paddock across the road.


----------



## Greenleaf (May 16, 2008)

Couldn't fall it whole because of a 3 phase powerline across the street, half a tree length.


----------



## treesandsurf (May 22, 2008)

Thanks for posting the pics, looks like it was the right decision after all. 

jp


----------

