# Climber Needed for Huge Take Down....



## teamtree (Dec 15, 2008)

Looking for a climber w/ experience working with cranes.

Target is a 100' / 48" DBH Beech Tree. The tree is cracking and needs to come down. 

Job location: Southern Indiana.

Let me know what you would need to come for the day and help us out.


----------



## Nailsbeats (Dec 15, 2008)

Get some pics of the operation if you can Teamtree. I know it's hard to sometimes, but it would be cool to see. Either way, sounds like a nice one.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Dec 16, 2008)

teamtree said:


> Target is a 100' / 48" DBH Beech Tree. The tree is cracking and needs to come down.



So what would be in it for me, and does the crane operator and ground crew have any experience?

Having the right crane for the job site is important, having the biggest crane you can put on the site can slow things down.


----------



## teamtree (Dec 16, 2008)

We will probably get a 40 ton crane and they guys I used in the past have limited experience but they seem to be good operators. 

We are not like the rest of the industry as we only use a crane about 2-3 times a year. We usually rig trees down but this is not a tree in which you can rig down and the climber needs to be confident. 

We will have a highly qualified ground crew on site for dealing with the brush as it comes down.

I will get pics ASAP.

What is in it for you? What is your daily rate? + travel & food

I let my climbers set there rate based upon time and risk factors and experience required.


----------



## treeslayer (Dec 16, 2008)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> Having the right crane for the job site is important, having the biggest crane you can put on the site can slow things down.



John. just curious, why? set up time is about the drawback I could think of. bigger the crane, the bigger the piece, the further the set aside. 


you know crane work, that's for sure.


----------



## Castenea (Dec 17, 2008)

> bigger the crane, the bigger the piece, the further the set aside.



Not quite, in my experience the chokers are only rated ~10Klb, and the biggest picks are normally only 6-7Klb. This is often a piece as large as the landing area can accommodate, so a crane that can lift more is unnecessary normally.


----------



## tomtrees58 (Dec 17, 2008)

Castenea said:


> Not quite, in my experience the chokers are only rated ~10Klb, and the biggest picks are normally only 6-7Klb. This is often a piece as large as the landing area can accommodate, so a crane that can lift more is unnecessary normally.



:agree2: tom trees


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Dec 17, 2008)

Castenea said:


> piece as large as the landing area can accommodate, so a crane that can lift more is unnecessary normally.



Which is often the problem. 

If you are in a situation where the work area is not confined, then the bigger is the better with huge trees. Big picks get the crane back on the road faster.

Often, you get a huge crane in and the weights get in the way of the turn. Using a smaller one gets you closer to the tree or a better range of motion, or both. Remember the post a while back where they used a 10 ton in the small back yard and passed the load to a 15 ton to move it to the log trucks and chipper?

Dave is used to renting a crane and getting as many storm jobs done in a day/week/moth as possible. I'm talking about renting the crane for the given jobs site characteristics.


----------



## treeslayer (Dec 17, 2008)

all excellent points, and I must agree that for the single job, speed and efficiency are foremost. and John, you hit the nail on the head there.

as far as chokers, or slings, the sky's the limit. I've recently watched a 90 ton put 45,000 lbs on a stump with cable chokers. pretty wild. just rent a big crane, and tell them what to bring. you don't necessarily have to provide your own, that's when you're limited.


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 17, 2008)

I could be game! I would like to see some pics though!


----------



## custom8726 (Dec 17, 2008)

treeslayer said:


> all excellent points, and I must agree that for the single job, speed and efficiency are foremost. and John, you hit the nail on the head there.
> 
> as far as chokers, or slings, the sky's the limit. *I've recently watched a 90 ton put 45,000 lbs on a stump with cable chokers.* pretty wild. just rent a big crane, and tell them what to bring. you don't necessarily have to provide your own, that's when you're limited.



Why?? sounds dangerous but maybe I am picturing something else?


----------



## alloutdoorsboy (Dec 17, 2008)

is there an airport near you guys??? Too far to drive.


----------



## treeslayer (Dec 18, 2008)

custom8726 said:


> Why?? sounds dangerous but maybe I am picturing something else?



to break a stump loose that had blown over, on a big 6' DBH pine.

was dangerous, we had a blast.


----------



## custom8726 (Dec 18, 2008)

Beats grinding it I guess..


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Dec 18, 2008)

treeslayer said:


> was dangerous, we had a blast.




That is an understatement, he was close to max on that for his angel/extension.

Should have had and excavator in to dig around it as it was picked. 

What do you think ol' Billy woulda said if you asked him to do that  There was one good OE.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 18, 2008)

When are you planninig on doing the job? Are there pictures avalible? Sounds like it could be fun!!!!


----------



## Tree Machine (Dec 18, 2008)

Here's a Quicktime of a contract job I did earlier this Summer for a local company. Their team had a bet I couldn't do it spikeless. I lost the bet. I had them throw the spurs up for the last three trunk cuts. Could have done them off a ladder, but I really don't like ladders. Here's the time lapse video.


----------



## TreeBot (Dec 18, 2008)

Tree Machine said:


> time lapse video.



Nice!


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 18, 2008)

I HATE THIS DIAL_UP :angry2: it took
five minutes to even see a picture it
must have been cool but I can't wait 
all night Anyway why the crane
the tree from what I could see seemed 
rig worthy!


----------



## Tree Machine (Dec 19, 2008)

On that sycamore, it would have been a rigging op, but the company owner underbid it, then no one there wanted to do the climb because it was over a garage, porch and power lines. He called me to ask some advice. I crunched numbers with him and the only way he was going to salvage his day was to minimize the time on-site to a morning, and then go do another job in the afternoon.... or tell the owner you need more money..... or bail on it totally. He opted to honor his price. 

We got the tree down and cleaned up an were rolling out by lunch. It wasn't that humongous of a tree, and the base cut, 4 feet across, was hollow to a degree, so that was helpful, and we didn't hit any foreign objects so it was a good day. I should have just worn the spikes. It was unnecessarily physical on a few of those long limbs. I should have had a second sling, or wire rope choker. That held up progress a bit.


On a _really_ big lightning strike oak a couple months later the crane operator lifted me up to the high tie-in point, we brought down a couple limbs and one of the ground guys yelled up, "Hey, ya want your spikes???" I just totally forgot them at the base of the tree. "I'll let ya know if I do." At the moment we were jamming and I didn't want to take the time and hold everyone up, plus the limbs had plenty of branches everywhere.

I never put them on because once we got it pared down to a 40 foot trunk, there was no need to lift it anywhere, just lay it down. The crane operator was a bit nervous, understandably, but it went OK. 5-1/2 feet across on that baby. 6 hours, he was the slowest crane operator I've ever used, I was pullin my hair out  I had a second sling this day, but it doesn't help a whole lot if you get rigged and then have to wait.


----------



## jomoco (Dec 19, 2008)

Tree Machine said:


> Here's a Quicktime of a contract job I did earlier this Summer for a local company. Their team had a bet I couldn't do it spikeless. I lost the bet. I had them throw the spurs up for the last three trunk cuts. Could have done them off a ladder, but I really don't like ladders. Here's the time lapse video.



How many picks was that TM, fifty?

Just kidding!

jomoco


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 19, 2008)

Tree Machine said:


> On that sycamore, it would have been a rigging op, but the company owner underbid it, then no one there wanted to do the climb because it was over a garage, porch and power lines. He called me to ask some advice. I crunched numbers with him and the only way he was going to salvage his day was to minimize the time on-site to a morning, and then go do another job in the afternoon.... or tell the owner you need more money..... or bail on it totally. He opted to honor his price.
> 
> We got the tree down and cleaned up an were rolling out by lunch. It wasn't that humongous of a tree, and the base cut, 4 feet across, was hollow to a degree, so that was helpful, and we didn't hit any foreign objects so it was a good day. I should have just worn the spikes. It was unnecessarily physical on a few of those long limbs. I should have had a second sling, or wire rope choker. That held up progress a bit.
> 
> ...


My last crane job was five large pines in a back yard I was elevated used chokers five large trees gone by 2:30 pm to do another tree this operator was too fast sounds like we need a middle of the road operator


----------



## Tree Machine (Dec 19, 2008)

I do the crown-out with a ported 346XP, 14" titanium carving bar and 3/8 LP chain like you'd use on the smaller top-handle saw (sizzle~~ ). Great power, fast cuts, plenty of fuel. A 372XP and a 24" bar for the bigger aerial cuts and a 395XP with a three foot bar waiting on the ground for the final cut(s). Everyone, I think, likes doing crane jobs.


----------



## Tree Machine (Dec 19, 2008)

I only mention that for you, ropensaddle, and I guess for any other Husky fans.


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 19, 2008)

Tree Machine said:


> I only mention that for you, ropensaddle, and I guess for any other Husky fans.



Cool I have very near the same setup except my climber is a 200t stihl!


----------



## Tree Machine (Dec 19, 2008)

Not enough power for me, bro, and too small a gas tank. Seconds count when you've got a crane running at a hundred and a quarter an hour.
Good saw, tho, the 200t. I've got one. Just wouldn't choose it on a crane job except for maybe emergency backup.



And I'm only replying to this thread because I hired teamtree a few years ago on contract to assist me in Indianapolis on a big job. It was the first time I'd ever hired another company. They did a great job. It was a fun experience.


For me to drive that kind of distance, it's gonna have to be one ugly, ugly, ugly kind of a tree.

Huge is a relative term.


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 19, 2008)

Tree Machine said:


> Not enough power for me, bro, and too small a gas tank. Seconds count when you've got a crane running at a hundred and a quarter an hour.
> Good saw, tho, the 200t. I've got one. Just wouldn't choose it on a crane job except for maybe emergency backup.
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah I would use my 372 for the crane work it ain't too bad to lug and starts on a dime I would likes me one of those 346xp's though now look what ya done gone and done lol! I don't suppose ya have stock in husky ehhhhhh?


----------



## Tree Machine (Dec 19, 2008)

> I don't suppose ya have stock in husky ehhhhhh?


The saws make me a lot of money, much better than having stock in the company.

I don't claim to have favorites, but the 346, once I converted from .325 pitch sprocket to 3/8 and began running the LP-type tophandle chain, WOW! The titanium bar NEVER throws a chain, and the first bar I got 15 months out of that. I'm still trying to figure out the whys to those advantages. Maybe it because I used vegetable oil for lube, I don't know. Then porting the exhaust, good gawd that saw moves.

I would recommend this setup to any professional, actually to anyone who can afford the extra cost of the bar. Swapping out the sprocket is a 5 dollar ordeal. Chains sharpen faster. 53 driver links, though, not 52 like on the smaller saw saws. Porting is a luxury, kind of, but nice.


----------



## teamtree (Dec 19, 2008)

Tree Machine....I hope all is well in Indianapolis. We stopped going up that way a year or so ago when the fuel prices jumped to $4. Would love to work with you on a climbing job as you do know what you are doing. 

Thanks for posting the video.


----------



## teamtree (Dec 19, 2008)

Well guys....i have heard a rumor around town that another local tree company is going to take down this tree with a 17ton boom truck. 

I told my dad's buddy (property owner) I would have to rent a large crane and he ask if this particular guy had a crane. I told him he has a boom truck and it would not be big enough.

Well, it seems this guy called him anyway and he is going to do the job tomorrow morning for $1000. I estimated it was going to be >$3000. 
The tree is 100' and this guys boom truck will not reach the top of the tree. So I am interested in seeing how he does it. I am taking the morning off and taking my camera out to the job site and hopefully learn something.

I will know for sure tomorrow but if the rumor is true it is going to be an interesting take down with that small of a crane (boom truck).


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 19, 2008)

I sure could have enjoyed a crane on this tree


----------



## Tree Machine (Dec 19, 2008)

Ewwww! That's nasty, ropen. Too small to warrant the cost of the crane, in my opinion. They charge me an hour in, an hour out. If he's coming for two or three picks, at had better be saving you a lot of distance dragging. Cranes can be an expensive 'convenience'.



> I will know for sure tomorrow but if the rumor is true it is going to be an interesting take down with that small of a crane (boom truck).



A climber will rig the limbs, if they can't be bombed. The boom truck could be useful if they can get in close enough, more for getting the tonnage onto a truck than for the dismantle. In other words, more of a help in the cleanup (which can be the larger part of the whole ordeal).

Let us know.


----------



## Tree Machine (Dec 19, 2008)

Here's a shot of the base of that crane sycamore I posted earlier.


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 19, 2008)

Tree Machine said:


> Ewwww! That's nasty, ropen. Too small to warrant the cost of the crane, in my opinion. They charge me an hour in, an hour out. If he's coming for two or three picks, at had better be saving you a lot of distance dragging. Cranes can be an expensive 'convenience'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was not as small as you are thinking it was 42"dbh and over
a hundred foot tall and overhanging and leaning toward the house!
I can't understand why they waited that long but I got all I could 
off to sixty foot and winched it after binding the trunk for inevitable
chair! It had lengthy long and live limbs over the house and after
giving rigging some thought I opted for felling. Ironicly The golf course
that let me set up to fell this tree in the back ground you can see a hazard
in which a few limbs went in to! I got them out with my sand wedge though


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 19, 2008)

Tree Machine said:


> Here's a shot of the base of that crane sycamore I posted earlier.



That is a dandy I cut one several years back 65" and that
was dbh too I hate sycamores sneeze
I cut some in Carmel back in 1986 they have some trees
in that hood!


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Dec 19, 2008)

That is not all that bad, structurally, at least in the plane of your felling cut. 

The fibers look like they broke well on the hinge, i.e. not rotten through. I'm drawing a blank here, is brown or white rot that has the better holding strength?


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 19, 2008)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> That is not all that bad, structurally, at least in the plane of your felling cut.
> 
> The fibers look like they broke well on the hinge, i.e. not rotten through. I'm drawing a blank here, is brown or white rot that has the better holding strength?



 What your not getting is I had 20 tons pull on that puppy
and the good wood was on the house side lol!


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Dec 19, 2008)

ropensaddle said:


> What your not getting is I had 20 tons pull on that puppy
> and the good wood was on the house side lol!




So your saying it was nice and solid


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 19, 2008)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> So your saying it was nice and solid



Yeah I tried to sell them on filling the cavity I mean it only extended twenty five foot lol. I just hate taking down a tree I could hug:angel:


----------



## Tree Machine (Dec 19, 2008)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> I'm drawing a blank here, is brown or white rot that has the better holding strength?[/QUOTE]The question is sort of like, which one is weak, and which one is weaker than weak?
> 
> Brown-rots selectively 'consume' the cellulose, leaving the lignin structure, which crumbles. That residual lignin is brown, hence, brown-rot. White-rots eat the lignin, leaving behind the cellulose which, without the lignin has little integrity. Livestock can eat it at that point (ruminants anyway). The remnant cellulose is white, hence, white-rot.
> 
> ...


----------



## teamtree (Dec 19, 2008)

settle down there TM....you are getting way too techinical on use....lol


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Dec 19, 2008)

Tree Machine said:


> Brown-rots selectively 'consume' the cellulose, leaving the lignin structure, which crumbles. That residual lignin is brown, hence, brown-rot. White-rots eat the lignin, leaving behind the cellulose which, without the lignin has little integrity. Livestock can eat it at that point (ruminants anyway).



That is what i thought, cellulose was stronger under compression.



> the remnant cellulose is white, hence, white-rot.



It is old logger terminology, they did not know what was going on, but that it was rotten and either white or brown.

send me an address or phone number, I have some fungi pic's on my cell I'd like ID'd Mr. Mycopahge. (not that I think they are eddible)

Sean G. I'd Deadman's Fingers for me, he was not sure of these one, and did not get the other. Lost in the either.


----------



## TreeTopKid (Dec 22, 2008)

ropensaddle said:


> Yeah I would use my 372 for the crane work it ain't too bad to lug and starts on a dime I would likes me one of those 346xp's though now look what ya done gone and done lol! I don't suppose ya have stock in husky ehhhhhh?



Yep! 372 and a new chain, and you'll be waiting for the straps to come back every time.


----------



## Bermie (Dec 22, 2008)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> That is what i thought, cellulose was stronger under compression.
> 
> It is old logger terminology, they did not know what was going on, but that it was rotten and either white or brown.
> .



Again, which is weak and which is weaker than weak?!!

I wouldn't say cellulose stronger under compression, trees with white rots (which is remenant cellulose, all lignin gone) fall over slowly, or collapse, they can't hold the weight.

Think of it this way...like a house (at least our houses)
Lignin is the cement blocks - strength, cellulose is the reinforcing rod - flexibility. 

*Very* broadly speaking...
A brown rot (remanant lignin) with stand up and then fail suddenly, usually snapping
A white rot (remanant cellulose) will bend and slump, failing slowly, or flop.


----------



## Mr.Roehler (Dec 25, 2008)

I am still waiting to see pictures of the tree or the take down with the boom truck.


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 25, 2008)

Yeah I think team said someone else got the job I was hoping to work with the team for a day or two. I was going to have my wife film it but guess it ain't going down!


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Dec 26, 2008)

ropensaddle said:


> Yeah I think team said someone else got the job I was hoping to work with the team for a day or two. I was going to have my wife film it but guess it ain't going down!





> Well guys....i have heard a rumor around town that another local tree company is going to take down this tree with a 17ton boom truck.



I read that and forgot he posted it on the 19th. He must be on vacation since, I emailed him on the 18th to see if I won the climbing bid. Sounds like there were a dozen guys vying for the contract 

Anyone near the MKE Metro area need some big tree help? I am bored with a day or two a week.


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 26, 2008)

John Paul Sanborn said:


> I read that and forgot he posted it on the 19th. He must be on vacation since, I emailed him on the 18th to see if I won the climbing bid. Sounds like there were a dozen guys vying for the contract
> 
> Anyone near the MKE Metro area need some big tree help? I am bored with a day or two a week.



:hmm3grin2orange: now that is some funny chit right there. I would
never dream of type throats I've been duped anyway he either
did not get it or was overwhelmed by a hungry mob:hmm3grin2orange:
If I ever get another impossible tree it may pay better to post it up
for bid and sip my green tea and watch the show:monkey:


----------



## teamtree (Dec 26, 2008)

Sorry guys I did not mean to leave anyone hanging....I posted that I heard a rumor that another local company was going to take the tree down for $1000. I was going do it for a friend of the family and I was going to discount the guy quite a bit but I still thought it was going to be around $3000 ($1000 for a climber, 1000 for a crane, 1000 for my ground crew).  The tree is located at a cabin in which my Dad spends quite a bit of his time with his buddies. I mistakenly thought I had a lock on the job. I explained to the guy I did not want to risk my life by rigging off the tree since it was splitting and that I thought a 40 ton crane was approriate to lift the leaders out of the tree. My bucket goes about 65' and the tree is about 100-110' so that meant breaking off 35' pieces and let them slam the tree fairly close to my boom. I thought the guy who said he would do it would not be able to do it as his boom and bucket are both 65'....i thought how is that going to help in this tree....

well the guy did exactly what I did not want to do...he cut the leaders from his bucket truck at full extension using a rope and port-a-wrap. Once the limb was hanging there, he picked it with his boom truck and set it off to the side. They actually did a pretty good job on the tree but I thought it was a bit risky rigging off the tree. They had the tree down in less than 4 hours. 

I watched them take the tree down and even helped a little bit with getting the wood out of the way. 

Here is a pic of the tree:


----------



## teamtree (Dec 26, 2008)

Again, I did not mean to 'cry wolf' and get people fired up.

I did however make the post to develop a working relationship with some professionals in the midwest and try to build a network to work with in the future. 

When I came home from watching this job, I actually received a call from a potential customer (referral) and it is even more technical than this beech tree. Will get pics tomorrow of that monster. 

I believe where one door closes another one opens. 

I learned several things from this thread:

1. To make it more economical, I may cluster some of my big removals (climbers) together with some mid range jobs so that when JPS or Ropensaddle come to Southern Indiana...I will get to spend some time with them and make it worth their while. It is hard to charge off a day of travel in one day of work.

2. All the reponses (5 guys contacted me) I got where very serious and I am glad to get the information.

3. I should not speak before I know I got a particular job...I never would have thought anyone could do it (or would do it) without a 125' crane...and for someone to take so much risk for so little.

4. I am more interested now in working with some of you after speaking with each of you.


----------



## teamtree (Dec 26, 2008)

a couple more pics


----------



## clearance (Dec 26, 2008)

Glad it worked out and the tree is down. Always a good thing.


----------



## treemandan (Dec 26, 2008)

That tree is 110 feet?


----------



## treemandan (Dec 26, 2008)

Lets say 80, cause its 80


----------



## treeslayer (Dec 26, 2008)

treemandan said:


> Lets say 80, cause its 80



Barely. A 60' work height maybe. IMHO
from the pics, this was very doable without the crane. or a bucket truck. I've climbed and rigged over a lot of broken trees, this one no problem. (at least the rootball is not compromised  )
especially for a hungry crew. $1000 is hungry, but without moving the wood, could be cheaper still. 
you made a good call. Because you didn't bid it low, half-a$$ it, or tear anything up cutting corners. better to lose em, than lose your a$$.
good post.


----------



## John464 (Dec 26, 2008)

Any pics of it being dismantled?


----------



## Blakesmaster (Dec 26, 2008)

It's hard to tell from the pics but it looks like an easy climber. I probably wouldn't have rigged down big pieces like they did. Just would have taken it easy, little piece by little piece so as not to stress the tree too much. $1000 is extremely low though IMO.


----------



## Rftreeman (Dec 26, 2008)

do any of these "climber needed" threads ever work out? just curious.


----------



## teamtree (Dec 26, 2008)

Let's say 100' becuase it was 100'. Not sure why I would lie and hey I may be off 5' one way or another but I know how to add a 40' section laying on the ground to the top of a 65' working height bucket truck....but I am sure reality is just a mere word to some people. 

We hauled off 6 8' sections to where the leaders took off and leaving a 3' stump. But hey...I know I am wrong and you guys are much better at looking at a pic. 

I would like to argue with you guys about the height but it is just getting old with all the chest pounding going on.

It was never a question of whether it could be done any other way....my way was a crane and yes, it was done differently. I could show you a bunch of pics of a competitor doing things I would not do, like us a hook choker to lower limbs down so when the top hits the ground and the cable gets slack it could just pop off, no safety clip at all. So, for me it is a question of safety. 

I am sure some of you guys don't mind taking chances on and risking your life for a little money...maybe you do it for the rush. I care about the guys I work with and I am not going to take a chance (whether it be slight or great) with their lives. This biz is pretty dangerous (288 deaths last year) the way it is and to add a big 30' crack 31" deep...nuff said for me. My wife and kids mean too much to me. 

So, it really was never a question of whether it could be done another way...I just wasn't going to do it that way, I wanted a crane to eliminate the shock on the tree.

Yes, you could have spent a day and half rigging it out one small piece at a time.

It all worked out and I am glad the tree is on the ground and the owners can sleep now. The competitor did a good job on the tree and I don't necessarily condone his methods...he got the job done. I put safety above the rest and maybe that is a bad thing in this biz. There is a guy that lives down the road from me and everyone tells me he will climb any tree for a 6-pack with no rope. I don't see him with much work.


----------



## treemandan (Dec 26, 2008)

teamtree said:


> Let's say 100' becuase it was 100'. Not sure why I would lie and hey I may be off 5' one way or another but I know how to add a 40' section laying on the ground to the top of a 65' working height bucket truck....but I am sure reality is just a mere word to some people.
> 
> We hauled off 6 8' sections to where the leaders took off and leaving a 3' stump. But hey...I know I am wrong and you guys are much better at looking at a pic.
> 
> ...




I am going by estimating the door on the shed is about 6 feet tall. How many doors gets you to the top of the tree. They are right next to each other? The door is roughly six feet? The tree is actually 72 feet tall. 

That's all I am sayin though 3000 grand is what it should be , a G is what it is... I mean was.


----------



## clearance (Dec 26, 2008)

TreeCo said:


> I cut and pasted the sheet of plywood leaning up against the house...the one at the base of the tree. It should be a pretty good guide for scale and 8ft. in height.



Pretty smart there. Gives a real good idea.


----------



## Nailsbeats (Dec 26, 2008)

Glad it worked out Teamtree. I just moved in down the street and I'm looking for work. If you could send some my way I would appreciated it.


----------



## rbtree (Dec 26, 2008)

custom8726 said:


> Why?? sounds dangerous but maybe I am picturing something else?



Why is that dangerous? Treeslayer was pulling out an uprooted stump.....big crane, steel chokers.

I use logging chokers often, including when we work most often with my guy who has a 23 ton truck mount. We've picked 7000-10,000 lb often with that unit.


----------



## jomoco (Dec 26, 2008)

I like steel chokers for crane removals, 1/2, 5/8ths and 3/4.

jomoco


----------



## rbtree (Dec 26, 2008)

clearance said:


> Pretty smart there. Gives a real good idea.




sort of...but the camera is pointed up, so the top of the tree is frurther away than the base, so those 8 foot segments should be inlaid progressively smaller. Yep, that tree was close to 100 feet tall.

I also don't think it was very wise of the company to do the tree the way they did....but, as the cutter was in a bucket truck, the risk, at least to him, was minimized. 


Good luck on the next one, teamtree.


----------



## custom8726 (Dec 26, 2008)

rbtree said:


> Why is that dangerous? Treeslayer was pulling out an uprooted stump.....big crane, steel chokers.
> 
> I use logging chokers often, including when we work most often with my guy who has a 23 ton truck mount. We've picked 7000-10,000 lb often with that unit.



Its dangerous because if that root ball is still attached and you put 10-20-60 tons of force on it and the roots let go its going to shock load the sh!t out of the crane and pose a danger to everyone else in close proximity... If its not attached and you have the means to dispose of a huge root ball and stump then yes by all means pick it, If not GRIND IT!!...

Back on the subject at hand, definetly do-able with out a crane (safely) but its not a tree I would do for 1k either..


----------



## treemandan (Dec 27, 2008)

You know we were just pointing it out but you don't really need any special tools to tell you how tall a tree is just look around. Also ,Teamtree, thanks for thinking I am worth it but I couldn't take a 1000 just to climb that morning job, I really couldn't... cause they won't let me but boy do I want to. 

Anyway, I see you made a carrer change, how long ago?


----------



## teamtree (Dec 27, 2008)

What is carrer?


----------



## teamtree (Dec 27, 2008)

Well once again a thread turns into a 'i can do it better than you' thread.

I appreciate all the comments but this thread is headed to the toilet.

Again, it was never a question whether some of you would climb it. I am sure there are tons of guys who would climb it...hell the tree was taken down with a bucket truck in less than 4 hours. Yes it could have been climbed and rigged down in small pieces. 

I was wrong on my estimate of what was needed to take it down but I am not sorry I made an error on the conservative and safe side.

Good luck to all of you and thanks for your input.


----------



## tree MDS (Dec 27, 2008)

A couple of those ratchet straps (or TSC, probably the same thing) like they sell in the Sherrill cat would have been the way I would have gone.

Start taking smaller pieces, then by the end probably go bigger.

Just some thoughts - not trying to chest pound, lol

Oh, and if a tree has a defect with say two halves splitting I like a chain and ratchet binder.


----------



## treemandan (Dec 27, 2008)

Sorry, I was just saying how it is... was i mean. I think a lot of people, including myself have given you a lot just on this topic. No need to act so forlorn, really, no need.


----------



## (WLL) (Dec 27, 2008)

tree MDS said:


> A couple of those ratchet straps (or TSC, probably the same thing) like they sell in the Sherrill cat would have been the way I would have gone.
> 
> Start taking smaller pieces, then by the end probably go bigger.
> 
> ...


i was going to mention this but thought fer sure they used em in the removal. i mean who wouldn't in a situation such as this


----------



## ropensaddle (Dec 28, 2008)

(WLL) said:


> i was going to mention this but thought fer sure they used em in the removal. i mean who wouldn't in a situation such as this


Ahhhhh spiderman,superman, but me I would have bound it at least but
an elevator ride would have been all good too.
Appeared to be frost crack we get a few but not like ya'all!


----------



## treeslayer (Jan 2, 2009)

treeslayer said:


> Barely. A 60' work height maybe. IMHO
> from the pics, this was very doable without the crane. or a bucket truck.
> you made a good call. Because you didn't bid it low, half-a$$ it, or tear anything up cutting corners. better to lose em, than lose your a$$.
> good post.



Seems this statement was misread by some. A 60' working height is about how far up I would have to climb to take it down. I guessed "barely" 80' total height, based on a picture. A lot easier to gauge correctly when standing next to it.

Teamtree came up with a 105' measurement, so I was only off by a little on the overall height.  

my apology for the misunderstanding, 
I'm not here to sound so critical of someone who's obviously a good climber.

Hence the reason I post _In My Humble Opinion
_


----------

