# pruning practices



## murphy4trees (Nov 17, 2002)

Tree Brothers,
Daniel Murphy checking in around pruning practices.. Three threads, (co-dominant stems, proper pruning vs. limb whacking and how long??) came up recently that have got me thinking about this issue. I apologize in advance if this piece gets a little long and this is a complex subject that needs more than a sound bite. I believe arbos would do well to re-evaluate attitudes and beliefs about pruning. Can you look at pruning from a fresh place, as if you know nothing??? 

So why do you prune trees? Make a list of the reasons… hazard prune, light, air flow, clearance, appearance, reducing the weight of structurally compromised trees, size, fruit production etc… If these are on your list I respectfully suggest you are lying to yourself… 

The real reason you prune trees is for the money$$$. If you weren’t getting paid you wouldn’t be doing it. So I believe that our industry as a whole is in state of denial about the influence that money (greed) has on pruning practices… A slightly more subtle denial than the guys who claim that spiking live trees doesn’t hurt them.. and denial just the same. I would like to shed some light on this shadowy truth.

An extreme example I recently heard about is a local co. I referred to in an earlier thread as follows..” his regular employer works only for the super rich.. they'll often prune the same trees every 6 months or sometimes even every 3 months..
We were talking about cabling a large maple and he asked if if he should get the deadwood.. I replied "that's a given... goes without saying"... Not at his regular job... they leave the deadwood when cabling for another reason to come back in 6 months....” Their yellow pages add states “ five certified arborists on staff”, and I know of at least three world class climbers that work there. So why are they pruning big trees every six months, and leaving deadwood etc.. if not for the money. Yet if you talked to them, I Am sure they would have some explanation for this practice that they’ve managed to convince themselves. I would call that denial..

So to what extent are you in denial about the influence of money on your pruning practices? How often do you recommend that your customers do nothing to their trees when you’re asked? When you do recommend pruning, what reason do you use to justify the recommendation? … That is what I Am suggesting we look at here.. the reasons you tell yourself and the customer for pruning, and what affect those reasons as a whole have on pruning practices industry wide. IE.. “Well ma’am we need to lighten up those big limbs and pop some holes in the sail to keep it from blowing apart in a big wind”.

JPS has made some references to this subject on recent threads.. He wrote “Anyone can do a raise and gut and still make proper cuts every time. they probably think they are doing good tree work. Tie high, work the tips, and keep wounds as small as possible. Thems the basics.” And in another thread he wrote “Dan, axiom of the trade "keep the cuts small". Reason; Decay, CODIT "wall one" is the weakest and birch is a poor comparmentalizer.” 

To me that is saying big cuts hurt the tree so make small cuts when pruning, and what I believe is going unsaid there is that small cuts hurt the tree LESS…. And yet they hurt the tree. So why are arborists hurting trees? FOR THE MONEY$$$ These trees would often be better off if left alone. 

That is not to say that pruning is uncalled for. Suburban trees are part of landscape and living space that must be shared with humans, buildings, and other structures, lawn, shrubs, flowers etc.. It is the job of the arborist to balance the needs of humans and their environment with the needs of trees. This often requires relatively severe pruning often removing large limbs and even large sections of the tree. Though this is often harmful to the tree, the benefits to humans must outweigh the costs. I believe that these benefits are often not achievable by making small cuts, and that pruning which does make primarily small cuts could often be avoided altogether. And I do agree that if the benefit can be achieved with small cuts they should be used in place of larger cuts. And I believe that large cuts would do far less harm to trees if arborists would make 100% certain that these cuts do not injure the branch collar.
So once again I ask.... why do you prune trees?
God Bless All,
Daniel


----------



## treeclimber165 (Nov 17, 2002)

As a freelance climber I'm no longer involved in the decision as to whether or not the tree gets trimmed. I trim the trees I'm told to the best of my ability. I HATE having to make big cuts on trees when smaller cuts will acomplish the desired result. But this is often disregarded when the customer comes out, looks up and says "Can you take off that big limb there going towards the roof!" with absolutely NO understanding of what thay are asking me to do. I've been forced to quit arguing in order to keep clients, so I quickly whack off the lead in a couple deft strokes rather than spending 15 minutes deadwooding and thinning it properly. 

You are right that I do this for the money. And it is many times difficult for me when I know that I'm being asked to do something not in the best interest of the tree (or client, even though they refuse to believe me). So many times I have started to view these trees as 'future removals' rather than pruning jobs. It helps me sleep better at night and keeps food in the fridge. 

But I always put forth my absolute best effort when asked to 'prune the tree like it should be done'. These are the jobs that keep me climbing. If every day were whacking off limbs back behind the roofline, I'd find a different career.


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 17, 2002)

165,
I would like to make a distinction between your situation and the point I made above.. You do what you do consciously.. that is you know you're doing what you have to do to make money... And you know and readily admit that it's an inferior pruning practice. You are not in denial..
I Am writing about the denial in our indusrty related to pruning..
The pic is of a Norway maple encroaching on a Norway Spruce.. The picture is taken from beside the garage.. The spruce is giving my customer's house, porch, and backyard privacy from the neighbor's house, as seen behind the trees. So it was my job to balance the harmful effects of a hard pruning on the maple vs. the health of the spruce and it's function as a privacy barrier... This balance could not be achieved with only small cuts.. 
Now the other side of the maple could have been pruned using small cuts only... but why do it? Enough harm was already done to the tree.. Why do more?
God Bless All,
Daniel


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 17, 2002)

Here is the tree after pruning.
D


----------



## treeclimber165 (Nov 17, 2002)

Looks like you did the best you could under the constraints placed upon you. I'm certain I would have been told to remove the main lead on the left as well as the portion of the lead where your rope is set. I'm starting to accept the fact that you mentioned earlier- The needs of the people/environment need to be weighed against the needs of the tree. 

Looks like that maple is a 'future removal' anyway, so in that situation I'd cut off what I was told and even try to leave tiny stubs for the removal crew in 5 years. Even if they won't admit it, the owners do not want the maple there. They will have it pruned over and over because there is no room for it, and when it declines enough from repeated wounding, they will finally have it removed. It's a doomed tree no matter how you trim it.


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 17, 2002)

Here is a pic of a larger Norway Maple on same property... no leaves.. centerred in pic.
This pic is after pruning.. Unfortunately I didn't take a before shot.
So you can't see how hard I pruned this tree. I took a lot of big branches out of the center/top of this tree, though it still has a fairly nice shape.
The tree has co-dominant stems with included bark, some other structural defects, a fairly hard lean towards the yard with some question as to root damage from grade changes, and was heavily shading some very expensive new plantings that were installed as a privacy barrier.
Again small cuts would not have provided the required benefits...
And due to structural problems a well implemented hard prune now could possibly extend the life of the tree.
Perhaps not coincidently, the customer informed me that the company I referred to above does her spraying and fertilizing.. This is the third time I've pruned her trees in the last year. I wonder why she prefers me to do her pruning...
God Bless All,
Daniel


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 17, 2002)

I'm not saying that I never make big cuts. I have walked away from work where people wanted me to raise a tree by removing 3 low 10-15 inch limbs.

I argree with you whole heartedly, pruning is controled wounding of the tree.

Other places I've argued from a different stance, when Wulkie is saying that all pruning is for money and the vast majority should not be done.

Here is my veiw point. Tree growth is a semi-random prosses influanced by environmental factors and genetics. Lets call it a chemical yes/no/maybe "desicion tree". 

This goes for branch grwoth as well as branch sheading.

In pruning for long term good structure we are making decisions how the tree can grow well for the next 50-100 years. Not just adapting it to it's micro environment, but to it's relationship with other parts of it's system. deflecting groth of one stem/limb/branch away from another. Opening channels of light to lower limbs and inner canopy. Stunting s/l/b systems to reduce vitality, or increase the bushieness, change the moment 0of bend.....

I don't think many of us are in denial as to why we are there, some of us just don't define it to the customer. 

What I man here for is to provide a science based service to the customer. To find theire needs and desires and to maintain their property in the best way possible in accordance with those desires.

If the client does not want to listen, our relationship will not last long.

I've spoke on this before, some of us see ourselves as tree advocates, and the other end of the spectrum sees themselves as people who make money doing waht the client wants. These are the conciencuos tree workers, not the McBubbas of the world.

I know many good tree people that will spend time making perfect cuts throughout the canopy, decisions for the trees structure only, then make a few nicely visible shiners for the sole purpose of the client seeing that something was done.

How often do we find ourselves in a tree wondering if we should take a few more cuts to make it look like something was done?

If the putpose is to provide long term clearance to objects in the landscape, then that is what has to be done. But a good arbo can still sell good prune for this most of the time.

As for your picture, I see no problems with what you did. Maybe I need to define small cuts, I don't mean felco sized cuts, but relative to the size of attachment origin. maybe an aspect ratio.

The differenace between what you did with the maple and the birch anecdote is purpose of the activity. One large heading cut is not nessesarily as good as many small one. Some times it is better though. 

When dealing with the amin stem or a large limb I feel that introducing the possiblity of deacy in an area that is, or will be, a point of bending is not a good pruning desicion.

How amny read this far without skipping anything?


----------



## Stumper (Nov 17, 2002)

Good points Daniel. You are correct that we are forced to balance the needs of trees and the needs of people. The people always "win". For me the important thing is to educate the customer on how to get the end results they desire rather than just giving instant gratification which is counterproductive in the long term. Even the"good" long term results may be injurious to the tree but if the customer understands then I'm okay with it.

I don't completely agree that if big cuts are bad then smaller cuts are just "less bad". Pruning can and frequently does prolong a tree's life. Granted that pruning wounds the tree but if those small wounds prevent a major wound and death then they were not "bad" for the tree. An imperfect parrallel can be found in human medical care. Innoculations and surgical procedures cause wounds but may prevent untimely death.

While thinning the tips may be more desirable than larger cuts in the top third of the tree, properly made cuts in either location seldom cause decay problems in my experience. The really BAD big cuts are the ones I see made in the lower third of the tree's overall height. When someone whacks off 1/2 (or 1/3 or 1/4) of a mature tree's canopy in one cut then decay is almost a foregone conclusion.

For what it is worth-I'm a lousy salesman. I tell customers all the time that-"Sure, there are things I can do to that tree but I don't see anything that is truly needed."


----------



## Stumper (Nov 17, 2002)

JPS, Evidently we were posting at the same time. I just read your post . Well said!


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 17, 2002)

When our clients go to the meat market, they buy by the pound. Too often that mentality pervades the measure of a "good" job. Pay more, get more brush. Once you as the employee or contrcat climber make the descision to "prune by the pound" you become a Wood Butcher. Pure and simple. No discussion. If you really are a professional, you don't perform unprofessional work. You do what is best for the tree. 

Many years ago I changed my way of thinking from the "Customer is ALWAYS right" to "Do the BEST for the trees." My work load hasn't changed, in fact I have more work now. The chip truck goes home with less debris and the trees are healthier.

Would you hire a body shop to paint over rust and not expect the paint to bubble off? Would you trust Arthur Anderson to do your book work? Why would you ever do low quality work? 

I'm sure this is a familiar story:

You're asked if you would have extra-marital sex with the person of your fantasies for a million dollars. You know that's a bad thing to do but who could pass up the money? You say, "Yes." Then you're asked if you would have sex for twenty bucks. "Of course not! What do you think I am a Whore?" The reply, "We already determined that, now all we're doing is setting the price."

What's your price for tree work?

I've attempted to walk away from doing work that the client wanted that didn't follow industry or personal standards. When I tell them that I won't do the work because it doesn't follow accepted industry standards and is harmful to trees, most times, I get the job, done MY way. People will respect honesty. The longer our profession accepts low quality work, the longer we won't be considered a profession by the public.

What do you think of this bumper snicker?

Wood Butchers get Paid by the Pound The picture would be of a gutted tree, huge pile of brush, a climber with a meat cleaver on the end of a chainsaw getting paid a pile of money and everyone is happy...except the tree. The tree is weeping.

Tom


----------



## Eric E. (Nov 17, 2002)

What a good idea...plant the expensive shrubs that need sun in the shade. Sounds like your pruning client needs to ditch the other guys. If she needs to spend money so badly I'll do the work when I'm in the Philly area.


----------



## treeclimber165 (Nov 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Eric E. _
> *What a good idea...plant the expensive shrubs that need sun in the shade...*



I didn't even pick up on that, Eric. Further proof that the client does NOT want the tree and plans on removing it, she just may be in denial about it. If she creates enough other parameters to justify removing the tree, she will eventually remove the tree.

I'm finding myself using two totally different pruning approaches depending on the customer. About 60% do not like or want trees, and hire a tree company to reduce the amount of shade/cover/leaves they have to deal with. I don't bother with extensive tip work on these trees because no one will appreciate it and I will be criticized for wasting time. I've fought long and hard to convince these people otherwise and have NEVER succeeded. The trick is to identify this type of client early and perform the work as a partial removal. Any other effort will be wasted.

The other 40% truly like their trees. They may not know much, but are willing to listen to your advice and information. They appreciate your skill and knowledge when you artfully prune a tree to reduce risk, deadwood and future defects. They enjoy saving hundreds of dollars a year on their power bill because the trees protect their house from the heat and elements. For these type of clients I will go the extra mile to do whatever is in the best interest of the TREE. I truly love working in these type of trees.


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 18, 2002)

JPS,
I have briefly read some of Bob Wulkowitz's writings and I suppose he and I are saying similar things... though I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "vast majority" of pruning should not be done.. I Am asking that we look at the influence of money on pruning and our present industry standards... I Am with stumper in that I often will tell my clients to "leave that tree alone". The bigger and older they are the more often I argue against pruning. 

How often do you talk yourself out of work?... Tom. Though you make good points about "more is not better".... understand that I Am calling into question the industry standards that you so passionately support. To summarize and restate my position.... 

Pruning, in it's highest form, is about more than what is good for trees.. It is about what is good for the whole... the whole interface of landscape and humans.. This higher good is often only achievable through "making big cuts". Therefore pruning practices which prescribe small cuts are often unnecessary and are neither beneficial to the tree or the "whole". Yet these unnecessary and harmful pruning methods are accepted as industry standards and regularly practiced by highly skilled and educated arborists.

In a way this is more of an academic argument for now that must take a backseat. These pruning methods do relatively little harm when compared to the gross and vulgar malpractices of topping, spiking, lions tailing, and over pruning, which are still so prevalent in our industry. Only once our industry has evolved to a higher awareness will we be ready to take the next evolutionary step. Until then there is much work to do and I commend those on this site that have so brilliantly championed this higher awareness..
And for those that are ready I ask you to look ahead with me.

God Bless All,
Daniel


----------



## NeTree (Nov 18, 2002)

Excellent and thoughtful post Daniel. Ya hit the nail on the head.


----------



## TREETX (Nov 18, 2002)

I get the uncomfortable feeling that there is an implication here that it is unethical to charge money for doing anything to a tree that doesn't improve its health, that simply making it "look better" is not enough.

I can say that the work here in this part of TX is different than what a lot of you all do. I know what 165 means about 60% of the pruning has something to do with spatial relationships i.e. - a redistribustion of light by removing green. Except for rose people and the lady who plants non-shade tolerant plants under her 200yr old oak, that never happens here.

Being a dry climate, deadwood of any size doesn't really shed from trees here and they get a really heavy deadwood load. Especially live oaks, red oaks(Q. buckeii/texana), and cedar elms. That results in the majority of work being done is solely for aesthetic purposes. What is the matter with that?? Yes, I do it for the money. 

you will have to learn that it is just as much a people biz as it is a tree care biz. How you work that angle is where the ethical part comes in. I have clients that want me to come back after just one season and do another crown cleaning because there is .5 inch dead in their live oak after a year. Instead of capitalizing, I say that there isn't enough dw to warrant entry into the tree at this point in time. Tell them that it will be better for their tree and their pocketbook if they call me back in a year. I have a good rep for not ringing the cash register on people.

It is not a crime to make money.


----------



## Greg (Nov 18, 2002)

The worst is when the neighbors have been admiring, and have fallen in love with the beautiful job of lion tailing that was done accross the street. It is a very hard sell to get people to change thier minds in those cases when they want their trees to look just like those. 
I would Really like to see some ISA or NAA bilboards or Ads promoting proper tree care.
Greg


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 18, 2002)

Late night infomercials...

I was doing some restorative work on a pear once and the lady next door came out beratingt me for doing poor work and taking advantage of the old man, my client.

I don't think this discussion is acidemic, becuase we as a group are past the regular hack work. This is about our work principals, not the industry as a whole.

She was pointing to the green ash she had a city boy come in and do side work on, typical raise&gut "proffesional" street work.

I understand Dan's point, but I assume that most people are aware how much the bottom line influances their work. I've had arguments with my clients about not removing a whole limb, but they want to do the drastic work because they dont want to take the extra time explaining it to their custome.

A few years ago we were having a similar discussion on roof clearance, I was still running a crew and stated that I will try to get a home's system will not be shocked by the sudden loss of that much dynamic material. One responce was why not get it over with all at once? This after I went through my schpeel.

What I would do is tell them it should be done over several years, if I could not get them to leave the limb and just reduce it. I would then do a drastic tip reduction and stunf the down limb branches. The majority of the time, I could then convince then to keep it that way instead of risking a large pocket of decay in the trunk or large limb.

All pruning is wounding, and every cut should be a conciouse decision. If the bigger cut is made because it is the best, then that is good tree work. If it is made because it is easiest....

Also, if the tree is not one that will be in the landscape in 25 years then we should take that into concideration, Dan's maple/spruce interface or instance.

Yes we do this for a living, as I've said before, we are specialized property managers. If we are not taking advantage of the client/customer, then there is nothing wrong with that. it is a given, just like the mechanic we takle the car to, or the plumber who replaces the broke toilette.

Soon I will be paid like a plumber too


----------



## Stumper (Nov 18, 2002)

I should be paid like a plumber! -My finances are in the toilet.


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 22, 2002)

As far as pruning for beauty only... I highly recommend it... It's artistic and for me gives great joy. It definately serves a good purpose. It's something to feel proud of at the end of the day and provides lasting value to the customer... you can literally change peoples lives by doing a good job. Sometimes when we make a tree beautiful we extend it's life by convincing the client to keep the tree. To me that is worth $$$.
As far as pruning hard to keep the customer happy... I do far less of it than I did years ago... I can't remember the last time I did. And we have a large red oak coming up that will be a good test.. The customer wants the tree pruned hard.. I told him we have to be careful.. "more is not better" etc.. he seems to understands that ...and I can still tell that he wants to see some difference for the money... So I will make a few more cuts than I'd prefer...just a few.
As far as elevating trees... JPS referred to this as "raise"... 
I think it is very often a good practice.. It serves a number of purposes...few people realize how important proper air circulation is to the well being of the household and landscape and how much better the air will move when you put 10-15' between the roof (etc) and the tree.. I learned that lesson camping in August. Elevating also allows rays of light that make their way through the upper canopy to the ground.. often times two or three cuts can increase many times, the light available to turf and undergrowth. And often removing lower branches opens up lines of sight into the trunk and branch structure that are very impressive, while eliminating that overbearing sense these branches can create. All of these benefits are available by just mimicking the natural process of trees shedding their lower branches.. especially when the shoulder starts bulging.. it's clear the tree is getting ready to shed the branch. If the tree is vigorous and the cut isn't too big and doesn't violate the trunk or branch collar, it should seal... That said I almost lost a good friend years ago because I refused to take a monster lowest branch off a big beech. He was going for the "cudda likea dis" look.
AS far as reducing shock to trees... if you want to know what the tree feels like when being pruned, hold your ear up against the trunk as you are running a chainsaw on a branch...
More on that later.
God bless All,
Daniel


----------



## The Climber (Nov 23, 2002)

a lot of arborist's look to make money where ever available reguardless what the impact to the tree might be, but I also know that there are a lot of people like me who have integrity, that realize being honest with their coustomers does not empty their refridgarator. The way I see it, the home-owner represents there needs and desires and it is up to us to represent the trees needs. Some times compromises are nessesary but many times I refuse to do what the client wants. It could cause me to loose that client but it usualy doesn't, and I never have potential future coustomers see me thrashing a tree or see a tree die soon after seeing me in it


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Nov 23, 2002)

murphy4trees,
I pray to all that is holy, that all that BS about how nice it is to raise trees was a case of you trying to be sarcastic!!!
As I read it, I became physically ill! I found it to be the worst words ever typed onto these boards, ever! You sicken me! As I read the words, I realized they were typed by either someone who hates trees, or is just plain sadistic.
Do you also spike up to these offensive lower limbs, and flush cut them off too? Then do you run a mechanical compactor over the root zone? 
Ahhrrrg...!

Don't read this quote unless you are trying to induce vomiting:

As far as elevating trees... JPS referred to this as "raise"... 
I think it is very often a good practice.. It serves a number of purposes...few people realize how important proper air circulation is to the well being of the household and landscape and how much better the air will move when you put 10-15' between the roof (etc) and the tree.. I learned that lesson camping in August. Elevating also allows rays of light that make their way through the upper canopy to the ground.. often times two or three cuts can increase many times, the light available to turf and undergrowth. And often removing lower branches opens up lines of sight into the trunk and branch structure that are very impressive, while eliminating that overbearing sense these branches can create. All of these benefits are available by just mimicking the natural process of trees shedding their lower branches.. especially when the shoulder starts bulging.. it's clear the tree is getting ready to shed the branch. If the tree is vigorous and the cut isn't too big and doesn't violate the trunk or branch collar, it should seal.


----------



## Stumper (Nov 23, 2002)

Very subtle Mike. I'm somewhere in the middle on this I guess. 20' to the first limb on a 45' tree is ridiculous (and unfortunately fairly common around here) on the other hand a mature tree which I can't walk under without ducking is ridiculous as well (I make an exception for Spruce and Junipers). Tip lightening and thinning of lower branches can make an enormous difference in light levels and, consequently, health of other plants in the landscape. Such pruning CAN make the difference in retaining or removing a tree. Trees that overhang roadways need to be pruned to provide clearance.(It doesn't help to say the should have been planted elsewhere 40 years and 6 owners ago) . 
A modicum of moderation gentlemen. 
There is no shame in doing what needs to be done or even in simply making a customer happy provided neither tree nor customer is being placed at high risk.


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 23, 2002)

*Point by point*

As far as elevating trees... JPS referred to this as "raise"... I think it is very often a good practice.

*Like Shigo says, it's all related to "Dose". You have to abide by proportion. Taking off too much of the food factory can be deadly. Be careful of blanket statements. Elevating with no benefit ot the plant OR the client approaches unethical behavior. I have many clients who want limbs cut off to allow light in but don't realize that the neighbor's trees are the ones shading their yard and their trees shade the next house, etc. Why feed the chipper just to feed your pocket book

It serves a number of purposes...few people realize how important proper air circulation is to the well being of the household and landscape and how much better the air will move when you put 10-15' between the roof (etc.) and the tree.

*Are you sure this makes a big difference? I think that we can all agree that keeping branches from touching structures is a good plan. I prune for a three to five year cycle not 10-15'. Study how smoke moves with the air. It doesn't take much of a change to allow good circulation.

Elevating also allows rays of light that make their way through the upper canopy to the ground.. often times two or three cuts can increase many times, the light available to turf and undergrowth. 

*Are we taking care of turf or trees? If the turf is thin, so what, mulch it. Take care of the tree. Harming the tree to benefit turf approaches sacrilege in my book. We rail on about wrong tree, wrong place when wires are considered. Why not wrong plant, wrong place when we consider turf. Mulch everything, we'd be better off, I believe. By following this crown thinning have you considered the stress to the tree? The tree has taken years to grow into the being it is today. How do we know the effect of this thinning?

And often removing lower branches opens up lines of sight into the trunk and branch structure that are very impressive, while eliminating that overbearing sense these branches can create.

*The Japanese used to bind women's feet. The Mayan used to bind babies heads to boards to flatten them. All to make them more attractive. What damage might have been done? Are trees trees or sculptures? Any carver will tell you to remove all of the stone, wood, etc. that doesn't look like an elephant and you'll have a carving of an elephant. Is this what we should be doing to trees? I don't think so. If clients want to see the trunk structure, walk up and look close. "Overbearing"? I find people overbearing not trees.

All of these benefits are available by just mimicking the natural process of trees shedding their lower branches.

*WHAT?!?!?! You've got to be kidding! When did a tree pick up a chain saw to shed a limb? The whole process of senescence takes a long time, not in the instant it takes with a saw. Shedding and wounding are two completely separate operations. Think of the difference between storm damage and pruning. How do we know which of the lower limbs are going to be shed? Can you tell which is the most vigorous?

. especially when the shoulder starts bulging.. it's clear the tree is getting ready to shed the branch.

*So...any time the "shoulder", do you mean the branch collar?, is visible, the tree is "ready to shed the branch"? If so, every ash tree in Minnesota would be a toothpick. Or do you mean "getting ready" in the lifetime readiness?

If the tree is vigorous 

*How do you know if the tree is vigorous? Starch tests? Twig elongation? Chromatic comparisons? What is "normal"?

and the cut isn't too big 

*What standards do you use?

and doesn't violate the trunk or branch collar, it should seal...

*"should"? What happens if the target is missed or some of your parameters aren't met? Then pruning becomes damage.

So much for my Saturday ranting!

Tom

(just the carage returnsjps)


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 23, 2002)

What I refer to as "raise and gut" is the removal of most of the inner canopy with no attention to growth on the branch ends. The anyone can do this, non tree person aproach to taking money from the public.

One major problem with raising a tree is that 60% of the canopy is in the lowe 30% of the crown. i don't know how many times I have been able to meet the homeowners needs by walking a low limb and doing some reduction work instead of making a "proper collar cut"

Here is a nicely rased tree I did around 9 years ago. Perfect collar cut, final cut on the upstroke.






looks sorta nice from a distance

http://home.wi.rr.com/sanbornstrees/norwaymaple trunkjpg.jpg http://home.wi.rr.com/sanbornstrees/norway maple trunck2.jpg

(links for Brians slow connection )

But on closer examination, we can see the sunken bark and poor wound closure due to my removing these large low limbs all at once. They were "codominant" in the sence that they grew from the tree at the same time as the terminal bud. No tru collar, and the branch pith will join with the trunk pith.

Lack of a collar means there is no hydraulic reduction in the union, so the tree does not need to maintain a lot of conductive tissue around the union. Even with natural target pruning I still had significant cambial dieback on the bottom of the wound and very slow wound closure.

I'm lucky that the wounds did not coaless and form a canker.

It is even worse because this tree is right outside my bedroom window


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Nov 23, 2002)

In case you missed this relate thread, about raising a honey locust, have a look:

http://207.44.158.62/~admin4/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2595


The absolute minimum a tree worker should know is to not top, raise, gut, or spike a tree they are trimming, unnecesssarily.


----------



## Stumper (Nov 23, 2002)

Key word: unnecessarily. Definition-depends upon who you are talking to.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 23, 2002)

I have nothing against raising the canopy, as long as it is done gradualy and the woulds are small in comparison to to the trunk. 

On samll trees, which the above mentioned locust is, then it may be a good thing to get them off early incase they are "codom" in the sence that Gilman speaks, they originate with the leader and will never have a branch collar at the union. Subordination and schedualed removal after several years can reduce the chance of major trunk defects later in life.

The there is planning of the landscape, if these branches become heavy limbs and will interfear with the landscape in a decade or so, then the arborist should plan with the owner to eventualy remove them. The temporary limb school of thought, maintain in a subordinate state so they can feed the immidiate trunk, then remove when there is sufficient canopy and caliper growth to support the trunk and root system under it.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Nov 24, 2002)

JPS:
"I have nothing against raising the canopy"

That's because you are not a tree! 
If you were, would you want those limbs removed? Would you like the sun beating down on your roots? Would you enjoy the hot, dry soil? Does compaction from the traffic, on this now hot, dry soil, do anything to help soil microorginisms? 
All you seem to care about is a trunk defect.

You might find it interesting that some arborist think the roots are the most important parts of a healthy tree. Lower branches protect the roots and soil. 

Why do evergreens get to keep their lower limbs, and all others must have them amputated?

I would rather have a tree worker accidentally top my tree than raise it. A topping can be repaired.

Do you like the ugly lollipop looking sticks that the nurseries sell as trees?


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Nov 24, 2002)

Stumper,
In your post regarding raising trees, you forgot to mention anything about the health of the tree you are raising. 
I am aware that trees need to be mutilated to fit into our ideas of a landscape, but do not confuse this mutilation with proper tree care. 
Jps like to raise trees. He lives in a city. All trees in the city must be raised(except conifers?). He would raise a six foot tree, seven feet, if he could figure out how. 
Gad, I hope you don't routinely raise trees. Your comment about getting poked by a limb on a mature tree worries me. Simply remove the grass, add compost the area, and be carefull when you walk under it.
Just because a tree care practice, wether it's topping, raising, or whatever, doesn't kill a tree outright in the near future, does not make it ok.


----------



## Stumper (Nov 24, 2002)

Mike, I did mention tree health (albeit obliquely). I said that there is no shame in making a customer happy provided neither they nor the tree are being placed at high risk.

Tree health is a very real concern for me. For that reason I frequently persuade customers to have a different operation performed than the one they originally requested. Sometimes I even refuse a job which I consider harmful and unprofessional. However, my service to trees is based upon service to people. If a person(s) chooses to extract a tree from its natural environment and plant it in their yard for their enjoyment then I feel completely sanguine about manipulating the tree's growth patttern for its owner's increased enjoyment through JUDICIOUS pruning. If we plan for 6'-8' of clearance under the mature tree while it is still immature we don't have to whack off large limbs later. If we work the tips on an already mature tree we can usually persuade the customer not to whack off the the lowest major limbs. 
You are entitled to your opinion but your arguments are very one-sided and seem detached from the natural order of things (trees serve people).


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 24, 2002)

> Now if Stihl would put it on the ms200... but the guys at the conventions have said no.



Well I gotta be able to walk under'm! Sheesh. 

As I have said before, we are highly specialized property maintinance specialists. We are paid by people to maintain their trees which are their property. If doing what they want is not possible in the good health of that tree, I will not do it. If I can over time find a solution to their problem, or maybe redefine the problem for them, I will.

I do not believe that every tree should have branches 4 feet from the ground, but I also don't think every tree should have branches starting at 20ft.

Do i like the stock comming from the nurseries? No they have very poor structure, I dont see raised whips. I see hacked tops intended to make the tree more bushy.

One of the reasons I advocate gradual reduction prior to removal is that there is a big change to the system in limb removal, the system needs to adapt to this change. Be less reliant on the production of the subsystem that will be removed.

On the other side of the argument, I would rather leave a lionstail in some situations then make a large wound on a trunk. This is usualy in a structural clearance situation, where you have to take a lot away from a limb that may have been stripped out far by previouse work, be it hack or home owner. Also as previously mentione by another member, using a heading cut which may or may not result in adventicouse growth.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Nov 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Stumper _
> *
> You are entitled to your opinion but your arguments are very one-sided and seem detached from the natural order of things (trees serve people). *



BINGO! You have hit on my major point! Trees serve people, but arborists serve trees!
If you don't care <I>about </I>trees, you can't properly care <I>for</I> trees.




> _Originally posted by JPS _
> *
> Well I gotta be able to walk under'm!
> *



Again, you missed my point, we don't want anyone walking under them, or mowing, or parking, or anything.

Crown raising should be thought of like crown topping, there are times to do it, but not routinely.


----------



## Treeman14 (Nov 24, 2002)

*Welcome to the real world, Mike*

Come on, get real. These trees are not in the forest anymore. They are in front yards, back yards, next to driveways, roads, garages, homes, pools, sheds, playgrounds. Do you really expect people to just let the limbs grow to the ground? Let's stop mowing the grass, too. It is definitely not natural to top all those poor little blades. I could go on, but I might offend you. I'll be waiting to hear that loud "POP",















...when you finally pull your head out of your a$$ and take a good look around.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Nov 24, 2002)

Treeman 14,
Can you explain why conifers don't need their lower limbs removed? 
Don't forget, they grow "next to driveways, roads, garages, homes, pools, sheds, playgrounds" too! 

In my defense, my head is not in my a$$. I am simply saying that limbs should not be removed because they are low. I'm sure the trees I care for look better than the "strip 'em up and gut 'em out" trees you seem to be advocating.
You would think I was bringing a new tree care idea up to this group...sad...


----------



## treeclimber165 (Nov 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by treeclimber165 _
> *I'm finding myself using two totally different pruning approaches depending on the customer. About 60% do not like or want trees, and hire a tree company to reduce the amount of shade/cover/leaves they have to deal with. I don't bother with extensive tip work on these trees because no one will appreciate it and I will be criticized for wasting time. I've fought long and hard to convince these people otherwise and have NEVER succeeded. The trick is to identify this type of client early and perform the work as a partial removal. Any other effort will be wasted.
> 
> The other 40% truly like their trees. They may not know much, but are willing to listen to your advice and information. They appreciate your skill and knowledge when you artfully prune a tree to reduce risk, deadwood and future defects. They enjoy saving hundreds of dollars a year on their power bill because the trees protect their house from the heat and elements. For these type of clients I will go the extra mile to do whatever is in the best interest of the TREE. I truly love working in these type of trees. *


Mike,
This is from earlier in this thread. Most of us think your approach is ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world. I wish I was in that perfect little world in which you reside, but I deal with REAL people.


----------



## Stumper (Nov 24, 2002)

Mike, I think there are 2 primary reasons that many people do not feel compelled to remove lower limbs on Spruce and Junipers. ( I didn't simply say conifers since most pines do not retain low limbs)
1. These species grow so thickly that the interior form is not easily discerned and they are given a role as a solid object in the landscape.

2.The lateral spread in proportion to height is less on these trees so allocating a block of landscape to them exclusively is more acceptable to most people. ("There is room in the yard to walk around the spruce. If we can't walk under the oak there is nowhere to walk!")

Having said that - many people do raise there Spruce and Junipers in order to see the trunk and utilize the space under the tree.

There is a noteworthy difference between talking to a post and talking to Mike. While neither is inclined to move at all, The post is unlikely to argue.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 24, 2002)

I like trees with full low canopies and I like trees with no limbs to 40 ft.

I've seen many a spruce in a front yard that has been raised. I've done it myself on occasion. As with other trees, I advocate it be done in a slow prosess. Remove only a few whorls a year.

I live and work in a city, but I do a lot of work in the contry too. Very often I have to deal with people who want to make a line of site (LOS)way off into the distance. Be able to see the neighbors horse paddock, or a lake. I try not to strip a side off way high up, but find the primary viewing site and open LOS from there. 

Even box elder or (insert your favorite weed tree here) I try to move away form the weed tree issue and see how long is it planned to be in the landscape. What is the purpose of the plant to the owner. Is it an eveentual removeal, when a more desirable plant will grow in?

Which leads me back to my idea of the spectrum of good tree people. The McBubbas dont have a space here. On one end you have the tree advocate, who has a hypocratic oath dealing with all trees are sacred, on the other you have the maintinance man who does what his client wants within the bounds of scientific application, no topping, spiking oe generic raise&gut.

I find myself somewhere in the middle. There are people I work for, and respect. Those on the left can seem a little whacky in their resolve, those on the right may be going along with the client because they don't want to take the time to convert.

Soemtimes you have to take the big wood.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Nov 24, 2002)

Finally a feeble attempt at explaining why conifers don't need raising. If you have ever seen a tree with lower limbs you will notice that in most cases the lower limbs are stunted and don't spread out as much as the upper branches. so the space arguement stinks.
I worked for years at a full service tree care company. It was a good gig. Excellent pay and benifits. The only problem was the salesman had the same attitude as the three or four of you who have told me I am wrong. 
He sold removing the bottom five or six limbs on virtually every tree I trimmed. In addition, he often sold removing all small "suckers" in the center of the tree. If a crown was slightly uneven at the bottom, he would sell removing whatever it took to even it out. All trees needed some raising. Some times it was 30 feet to the first limb and I still had to go up and raise it. For example, he felt the first limbs should be large, so if there were 5 or 6 small limbs below the first main crotch, they had to come off.
The trees did look good to the untrained eye, balenced, formal, and plenty of air movement in and under.
I fought with the salesman over this over trimming and he insisted that that's what the customer wanted. In the end, I left a good job working with good people, because I knew this wasn't proper prunning. Like those of you who disagree that this is over pruning, he thought it was good work. After all, the customer was happy and we got paid.
My new employer sells almost the same type of residental and light comercial work, only there is almost no gratuitous crown raising and never gutting. I do maybe one or two raises in a full week of trimming compared the 25 or 30 that I used to have to do. The overall quality of my trimming is so much better, along with the long term health of the trees. 
Now, can you understand how I know it's not a fantasy world I'm speaking about? I have done it both ways and I know what I'm talking about. The only difference in the two types of work is the knowledge and skill of the salesman and climber. 
I fully understand that some trees have to be raised, but only about 5% of those that are raised. I also understand that it's hard to change an attitude that one has had for years, change is hard. All I'm asking is that you think about it and never cut another lower limb again for the rest of your life. 
Shigo says, "Touch trees". How can you touch them if the first branch is 20 feet in the air?


----------



## Stumper (Nov 24, 2002)

Mike , the way you came across to begin with it seemed that pruning a lower branch was a "never, never,no-no". Now it appears that your gripe is in always doing it whether a 'reason' exists or not. Don't throw up but....I'm on your side! 

I have to ask . If lower branches are short and stunted as you say then shouldn't we expect to cut them off soon (after they starve out and die a death of protracted agony of course)? 

I'll bet that I remove more lower limbs than you do Mike but I don't do it without reason and I don't remove large limbs very often.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Nov 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Stumper _
> *I have to ask . If lower branches are short and stunted as you say then shouldn't we expect to cut them off soon (after they starve out and die a death of protracted agony of course)?
> 
> *



Let's consider this tree:

A tree with lower limbs, wow!


Notice the lower limbs. You can't buy a tree like this from a tree farm, so you don't see many like it. This is a rare open grown tree. Never had a lower limb cut, ever. Yet it continues to thrive.
Doesn't take up much more room than a coniferous tree of equal size. It's shape is a result of auxin, a hormone that comes from apical meristems and moves downward, and it's buildup inhibits growth of lower limbs. This is the flaw in the idea of removing limbs now vs. later. Left naturally, they are stunted and once shaded out they will slowly die and shed on their own. This way the tree has plenty of time to set up those CODIT barriers Shigo speaks of, and branch bark protection zones Gilman talks about.
You ask, should the lower limbs be cut off once they die?
I would say the longer they were left on, the better. My rule of thumb is to wait until the bark is loose. If you follow the threads at the ISA website you will better understand the benifits of leaving a dead limb. 
Look at the tree again. Where would you raise it to if it were growing in your front yard?


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 24, 2002)

Mike and I are working on the same crew but in different states. Pruning less is better for the tree. Besides, I can charge just as much, cut less and have fewer chips to haul to the nursery. All of that and I KNOW the trees are healthier.

I'd like to see that same ash about ten years from now. I'll bet it has self-pruned/elevated up to about the main split. In the intermining years the brances will have provided bulk to the trunk and food to the tree. They don't "starve out and die a death of protracted agony" In fact, as the limbs die, the tree will actually move the extra stored starches out of the limbs and reallocate it before the limb dies completely. Isn't that incredible! The tree can manage it's own affairs without using saws.

There are times when lower limbs need to be removed. Hazards and physical obstructions are about the only generallized reasons for removal. After that, the only reason is to satisfy humans.

Next time you have the opportunity take a look at native trees that have grown in the open. How many lower branches are left? 

This topic has gone through several arcs on the ISA forum as well as Doug Mellor's site. Taking the time to search those site's archives should open your mind to some more options. You would be better served searching than posting here for a while.

Tom


----------



## Stumper (Nov 25, 2002)

Tom, I was teasing Mike about the "death of protracted agony". I understand that trees are marvelous creations that can take care of their own development quite well, naturally. Mike and I are fussing about this because I am convinced that "satisfying humans" is a VALID reason to prune trees. Not all pruning that isn't expressly for the benefit of the tree is butchery.(Granted, there is a point when it becomes so.) Both you guys are very knowledgable (more so than I in many areas), however you both tend to come across arrogantly at times. I will look at the sites you mentioned-you've given me lots of good links in the past, However, telling me that I need to go study before posting anymore is inappropriate. The disagreement betwen Mike and myself( and apparently you) is not based on my lack of understanding regarding tree biology,rather upon a seeming disagreement about ethics and the morality of pruning trees to "satisfy humans".

:angel:


----------



## Stumper (Nov 25, 2002)

Mike, If it were in my yard I would prune up to the top of the erased area.


----------



## Stumper (Nov 25, 2002)

Actually I posted the wrong pic first I might only go this high-depends on appearence and some dimensional factors that I have trouble gauging from a single photo.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Nov 25, 2002)

Stumper, I would hope you would think of it as passion rather than arrogance.

In your computer trimming of my tree, you have, again, proven the point I'm trying to make. With no other information about the given tree and it's new location, you feel it needs at least some crown raising.
Had I first shown you a picture of the tree raised to the point you showed, I am almost certain that you would have recommended raising it more. After all, everyone has seen tree nurseries, and they never have any lower limbs.
If you did raise the tree to the height you showed, grass would certainly grow under it. That grass would need to be mowed, the result of which is soil compaction and repeated trunk injury, both often fatal, we have all seen it a million times.
Perhaps you are one of a small percentage who will put a little bark ring to prevent this. Now it looks dumb, so you'll need to do some planting to replace that missing foliage. You will cut off part of the tree's food supply, in order to plant aggressive competitive plants to take away some more of the trees food. 
The cycle begins. A downward cycle of removing lower foliage from the tree to improve the plants below. The tree suffers for the grass, hostas, and spireas.
Had you left it alone there would be no need to begin this downward cycle.


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 25, 2002)

Mike said it for me again.

The point about reading the other sites isn't that the gang here doesn't know enough. There are some subtle points of philosophy that are covered in the threads on the other sites. More of a feeling than hard knowledge. There are other minds that have shared their thoughts for the rest of us to ponder.

One time Bob Wulcowicz said, "There is more damage done to trees by well intentioned pruners pruning out lower and inner limbs than by topping trees." That one made me think for a while. After looking around at all of the boulevard trees that have been skinned out by monkeys working according to poor standards, I have to agree.

If you're going to make a sarcastic statement in a post would you consider making use of an emoticon? Unless there's some way of knowing that what is written isn't just a statement, I take it at face value.

Tom


----------



## TREETX (Nov 25, 2002)

Interesting thread evolution.

I think some hugs and apologies are in order. Blasting murph like that based offa one post. Why not try to make sure ya'll are on the same/different page first?

That is an interesting pic of a tree with limbs down low. Tree don't do that here. One, it has a single main leader. 2, the lower limbs don't run. On oaks here, lower lims can run 2x the height of the tree.

People should plant the right tree in the right place. Grass should be an accent, not a center piece. Lots of things I would like to see but unfortunately I work with trees that grow in the real world. They do not grow in Ed Gilman's wonderful book or on the ISA literature. They are growing too close to drives, streets, walkways, structures, and where people live/play.

Part of what makes trees aesthetically and emotionally soothing are the activities that go on underneath them. Picnics, swings in the shade, fitered light across a backyard BBQ. If a tree has limbs to the ground spreading over the yard, activities are severely limited.

Not every tree has to be an old field tree some can be made to resemble forest trees. Who better than arborists to imitate natural forest pruning?? Better than a homeowner with a powerpruner.

No blanket presciptions - ever.

I could not possibly explain my views in an online forum so spare yer selves from judging me in an online forum. Be a little more open. This is a forum to hear and express views, not a competition of who is the number one Cyberarborista. The cattiness really turns a lot of people away. 

Pruning practices will never change/evolve if all variables/results are not explored - keep it up.

Nate


----------



## Stumper (Nov 25, 2002)

Tom, Okay, my apologies-I should have used an emoticon. ( I just went back and looked-I did! Gimme a break :^))

Mike, The new location you proposed is MY YARD! I know something about my yard and would definitely work the tree up to the point I like. I do NOT automatically raise everything. I do want my deciduous trees off the ground. Yes I walk under them and sit under them. As Tom pointed out previously, the tree will shed those limbs eventually(more than I propose taking off in fact). I will nudge the tree toward a more mature appearance earlier. I LIKE that. You stuck it in MY YARD making it MY TREE. We have adifferent view on what is ethical. FINE!


----------



## TREETX (Nov 25, 2002)

It is an art and a science.

Hard at times to see the line between the 2


----------



## Stumper (Nov 25, 2002)

Nice posts TREETX. I agree we blend art and science. Manipulating a tree's growth to enhance the way it serves its owner seems very ethical to me. The logical extension of what Mike is saying is to leave everythuing natural and stop all pruning. The extension of my position is to do whatever the owner wants without regard to the consequences. I don't think any of us advocate either extreme. Where we draw the line is "The Great Debate". Ultimately we all make up our own minds.


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 25, 2002)

I Am glad to see so much activity on this thread and would have replied earlier if we hadn't worked through the weekend..
I Am thankful to Mike and Tom for their input and believe my thinking on elevating trees has improved.. We pruned a 100' red oak yesterday and the customer originally wanted to have the three lowest limbs over the house removed... I was going to do it.... until I read up ... and thought about what I would do if it were my tree..
So I called the customer and explained my change of heart to him and actually editted and printed him out 9 pages from the earlier thread Mike posted a link to... 
So while Big Jon, from tree buzz who did the climbing, was working the top and back of the tree, the customer read and afterwards I lobbied hard to save the limbs.. I let the customer make the decision... he took our advice, which was to remove only the smallest of the three, as it was poorly attached and had some decay. 
Here is a before pic of tree.
So I agree that elevating is too often practiced as a knee jerk reaction....... and many things have come up for me as a result of the posts here.... more on that later.
God Bless All,
Daniel


----------



## Stumper (Nov 25, 2002)

Do you have an after pic Daniel? Looks like an easy tree to prune for clearance using only tip work(definitely preferable). Is the pruning in the left background some of your work?


----------



## CityUF (Nov 25, 2002)

*So, the question remains... who do we work for?*

This got kind of long... I'm preaching

Yes, we work for the customer
Yes, we should do what the customer wants
Yes, we need things like clearance and safety( I have to worry about stop signs, etc...)

Yes, we have people who are afraid of trees
Yes, we have stupid people who plant trees two feet from their
house or build a house next to trees
Yes, some will cut whatever and however its asked for
Yes, some won't

Should we try to teach them?... Yes... But you can't change everyones mind
Should we tell them no?... Yes... There has to be something to let them know you are serious when you say its bad

I work for a city ( I make recommendations for homeowners and do all the trimming on City Trees) so I have lots of people who all think they know how and they tell me what to do. I have to explain myself and stick to it... no matter what they say... 
It started out bad but now they ask and accept my recommendation or don't. 
I try to educate and have been yelled at, thrown off property, told I know nothing, etc, etc... But I have also stopped many trees from being topped, removed, or tipped because many people are looking for a reason to not accept what the guy with a chainsaw and a truck says is best.
I'm the only certified arborist in the county so educating these people is very tough. I have to convince them that the way they have been doing it for 50 years is wrong... that the power company doesn't trim trees... they obtain line clearance... and that nursery tree trimming and hedge trimming practices do not work on mature trees

We say we are professionals then we have to act like it. 
A previous reply said no one wouldn't accept painting over rust So why do people acccept poor pruning? Because they don't know the long term problems it causes. 

I also understand the business side... Who wants to lose all their work to some guy who does his job poorly? Who wants to lose any work? When talking with the customer tell them right from the start that you care about the trees health and if they want shoddy work they can go to someone who only wants their money. Don't get into specifics unless they ask... what homeowner cares or understands about branch collars? 
Do mechanics explain internal combustion or just quote a price? 
Most homeowners want safe, pretty, and easy. I tell people I would rather remove a tree then top it. That stops a lot of people or at least makes them think. 

If you don't want to tell them no... put it in writing that what you are doing is not recommended by any professional group and it may affect future claims against their homeowners insurance when the tree fails and destroys something. 
The fear factor is why many people top trees( thats the main reason in my town)... why not use fear to to the trees advantage?

We can't say that certain forms of trimming are bad ( raising ) because that same reasoning can be applied to everything we do to trees. Only mother nature does it naturally but humans have changed the forest environment. We have encroached on forest land and created the 'Urban Forest' where trees face entirely new problems. We, as arborists, must constantly learn and educate to be the best we can.
I know this covers a lot but we can't work thinking that only one way is right... we just have to agree on what is wrong

*Some of us take care of trees because we want to AND we make money doing it*


----------



## trees4life (Nov 25, 2002)

CityUF

Well said!


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Nov 25, 2002)

To make my final post on this subject for a while...

Mike admits to doing it sometimes, finaly.

Mike keeps up the hyperboly that we want to raise every tree we see, and gut them too. 

Seems to me we are realy all arguing the same thing then; having trees with low limbs in a landscape is a good thing, but not always possible. 

With proper management practices we can maintain a healthy tree for the client for years to come. The key is to change the view of pruning trees to managing trees and make the customer a long term client.

I also think it is a good thing that Mike has found an employer with whom he is is in such good phylisophical agreement. BTW, his boss seems to take him to all the nearby conentions too


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 26, 2002)

The pic is of a small dogwood tree in my front yard.. We just bought the house in May. I was thinking of removing the lower branches so the lawn guys could cut the grass more easily... and after reading MM's posts, on this and the other thread he posted a link to, it's a no-brainer.... the branches stay.. cut the girdling roots and mulch out further.... definately makes sense.

So again I Am grateful to MM and Tom D. for sharing their perspectives. That said.. I request that we all work towards findind a way to share our perspectives in a civil and coimpassionate way... MM referred to himself (his posts) as passionate.. to the extent that is true.... great. Mike... I think your original reply on elevating was unnecessay and damaging to this site and those on it. Would you call a husband who slaps around his wife and kids passionate?? or Abusive? How about Hitler... was he passionate??? or a maniac? 

It seemed to me that after Nick got spanked a bit for putting his foot in his mouth a while back, the tone on this site got quite a bit more civil and respectful. As a result we've heard form a lot of new voices lately... I think that people get scared off when they see others getting "attacked" harshly... which tends to leave us with a "good old boys" network... If we really care about trees, it would be good for us to be as inclusive here as possible.

And in this situation perhaps it worked out fo the best.. you certainly got my attention.

God Bless All,
Daniel


----------



## geofore (Nov 26, 2002)

*Low branches*

I don't buy into it is easier to mow if the lower branches are removed, What, your riding mower does not have a rack on it for carrying a weedwacker? Get off the mower and weedwack the the grass in that area under the low branches, you are going to wack around the tree anyway or mulch. It is more of a question of how much work are you willing to put into maintaining the lawn to look that way. You will get people who ask to have all the trees removed so all they have is lawn to mow, "Don't forget to grind out the stumps because I don't want to mow around stumps either."


----------



## TREETX (Nov 26, 2002)

Lets just let all the low branches grow, right down to the ground all of em. That way no activites can go on in the yard. None. That is good because then we can let dead trees just stand until they fall. Hazard being eliminated due to the fact there are no activities underneath. Then just let them fall and stay in the yard. Good wildlife habitat and it keeps the lawn guy from getting close to any precious lower branches.

How about something different than wall to wall grass. Grass should be an accent if present at all, not the center piece.

Yeah lower branches whuhooo!!!!
Power to the branches!!!! No more arbo man tryin to but a little supressed branch down, us little branches have been hood-winked, bamboozled, run-amuck. We didn't land on the lawn, the lawn landed on us.

How about manking decisions on a case by case basis.
:angel: 

Nate


----------



## geofore (Nov 26, 2002)

*low*

Ouch, TREETX, case by case is best but I don't see removing all low branches just because they are low as the answer either. I went to look at a job today, homeowner wants all the trees topped so they don't grow tall enough to hit the house if they fall over. My suggestion is to plant smaller trees as the larger ones are removed a few at a time and space them better. The trees were planted when the house was built to block road noise with no consideration to how big the trees would grow over time. Someone topped the trees once before and it will be difficult to trim them now to get them to look like the homeowner wants now. They want limbs to the ground and green all year. Pine to replace pine but better spacing or different type of pine will work, otherwise the trees will need to be trimmed often to keep them in check. I shake my head when I see lawns planted like this for fast growth to get some green up and no long term thinking of what the trees will be like 10 or 20 years later.


----------



## TREETX (Nov 26, 2002)

Really, the thick sarcasm wasn't targeted toward you. Just any blanket statement to save them all. I think everyone here know what good work is and do good work, for the clients and the trees. Expressing views can get a bit carried away.


----------



## The Climber (Nov 26, 2002)

I think the ammount of passion expressed, and the willingness of many on this site to share their knolage and experiance is a verry good thing for both the tree's and the industry.


----------



## gregorylnd (Nov 26, 2002)

To CITYUF,

I love your suggestion about putting it in writing that the customer has been told that what they want to do is against accepted industry standards, and that their decision may affect any future claims. My boss is a hacker and the only way I have made progress with trimming practices is this same approach. He refuses to read anything from ANSI so I have to quote it to him and then print out a copy of the section. PEOPLE LEARN SLOW and we all need patience to allow for that. 

God Bless, Gregory


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 28, 2002)

*repair this!*

Both Tom and Mike have tried to compare the damage from topping to the damage from elevating. MM’s post on the pruning honey locust thread is “” If you think about it, a topped tree can be repaired, a stripped up tree cannot. You cannot glue those branches back on the bottom, nor will they grow back.” And TD’s from this thread is ” One time Bob Wulcowicz said, [There is more damage done to trees by well intentioned pruners pruning out lower and inner limbs than by topping trees]….I have to agree.”

Though these statements may serve to bring awareness to the issue of unnecessarily and routinely elevating trees, I think they are at best misleading. This pic is of a tree I get to see every time I drive up my street. Maybe that’s my penance for having elevated too many trees??? 
God Bless All,
Daniel


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Nov 28, 2002)

The tree pictured has had about everything in the book done to it which causes harm, including being raised.
Had that been a healthy tree at the time it was topped, there is a good chance it would replace the missing foliage in several years and with the right care been a nice tree again. 
As it is, having been raised, the roots cut off two sides, repeated injuries to the trunk from mowers, veeing out by the power company, and many other distructive things, the tree had little chance to recover from the topping.
Downplaying the harmful role crown raising has on trees is a huge disservice to everyone. I could downplay wearing spikes while trimming, I don' t think it's as as bad as topping, so don't worry about it, right?
I have done repair work on trees that were topped by nature, and those topped by hacks. In both cases given time and not too severe a topping, the trees can grow back and look normal. The same thing cannot be said about over raising.


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 28, 2002)

My thinking on this tree is that it was topped in the summer and that it was most likely in relatively good health before topping. Because it is fully exposed, the sun would have burned the remaining limbs no matter what condition the tree was in.
This is not intended to downplay the harm that elevating does... just a reality check.
God Bless,
Daniel


----------



## Stumper (Nov 28, 2002)

I agree (mostly) with Mike. The pictured tree was butchered. Many times ,if the tree was healthy to begin with, there will be regrowth that can be 'straightened out' with long term care. Other times death results soon and there can be no salvage. 

Thanks for saying "overraised" Mike. I'll agree that a deciduous tree may take a decade or 3 to shed lower limbs and that they do contribute to the tree's health. Getting the canopy 6 or 8 feet above ground level may not technically be "good" for the tree but isn't necessarily very "bad" either. Think about this. Why do trees not replace lower limbs that are pruned off? They will (if they have the necessary reserves) regrow a top. The difference may lie in the fact that the top is essential to the tree's health and survival. Lower limbs are not. If the tree is "overraised" as you termed it ,Mike, then we do see the formation of masses of watersprouts.-The tree is trying to replace essential canopy. Small lower branches, while contributory to the tree are not essential -long term they will often autoelliminate/self-prune. If they are lost prematurely the tree will not waste effort reproducing them. We've been arguing about this long enough. I really am not trying to keep the argument going. I appreciate your "passion" for the trees but the "blasting" that we started off with was good for an argument but kind of counterproductive to thoughtful discussion. I apologize for any blasting from my end. I agree that automatically whacking off lower limbs on every prune is all too common (I see it all around me) and is harmful. I don't consider pruning off small lower branches and tip thinning and lightening to provide walking clearance to be in the same class. City trees here are in decline all over town. No hatracking has been done but severe "dropcrotching" has been perpetrated by the city after extreme overraising (30 + feet). (in some cases they reversed the order of abuse ) I drove past and grimaced as They raised and gutted a beautiful 30"dbh American Elm last week. The Tree ALREADY had over 20' of clearance before they started. They whacked off a couple of large lower limbs then lions-tailed the rest. I guess that if they follow their pattern they'll come back and "dropcrotch" it in a couple of years. Then, as it starves to death, they'll cry about Dutch Elm disease.

P.S. Murph, Really is tragic that the perpetrators of that hack job didn't at least wait for winter to give the poor tree a little bit of a chance!


----------



## rbtree (Nov 28, 2002)

Here's a nice example of a birch left to grow naturally.
I spotted it the other day while doing estimates. I saw no historical signs of any pruning. Left alone, it looks pretty good!

Had this been a nicer landscape, most likely the tree would have been manicured.


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 29, 2002)

I’d like to use the pic RB posted to tie this conversation back to my original point. What’s the best thing to do for this tree???a) Raise and gut? b) lightly elevate? c)Top? d)Tie high, work the tips and make small cuts? Or e) Do no pruning at all? There is no question in my mind that given sound structural integrity, this tree is better off left alone. 
So which one would you sell? 
No pruning at all can be recommended but not sold. So how many companies out there will talk themselves out of work and walk away from that tree?
How many of us are even ready to look at this? The thread was relatively quiet when that was the question. As soon as I mentioned elevating as a “very often a good practice”, the debate got hot. The point here is that few are willing to get honest about this subject because it means admitting that we are selling lies. It’s easier just to lie to ourselves.

TD and MM argue for doing what is best for the tree, not the people, not the turf etc. TD wrote “Pruning less is better for the tree. Besides, I can charge just as much, cut less and have fewer chips to haul to the nursery. All of that and I KNOW the trees are healthier.” That statement says a lot. To me, the language implies self deception. As if pruning hard is good and pruning less is better. When the truth is pruning hard is harmful and pruning less is less harmful. Trees are healthier??? Healthier than what? Healthier than if you hadn’t pruned them? Tom, you refer to the science of tree care when you speak of Starch tests, Twig elongation, and Chromatic comparisons. Where is the science to support the above statements?.. specifically pruning makes trees healthier.. 
There has never been a double blind study that proved the efficacy of cardiac bypass surgery. Never has been, never will be. Therefore there is no scientific support for the practice. Now imagine you’re a heart surgeon making $2.5 million/year and someone comes along and says bypass surgery is harmful.. not helpful. Are you going to thank him for the information and find a new career or ignore him or maybe decide he’s a threat and destroy him?
God Bless All,
Daniel


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 29, 2002)

To me, the language
implies self deception. 
*Sometimes, going through life as a happy idiot is just easier.

As if pruning hard is good and pruning less is better. When
the truth is pruning hard is harmful and pruning less is less harmful. 

*hard...less...better...harmful... According to what measuring stick? Truth? According to who? You need to show what truth you're using. All of this discussion pivots around what goals we set at the beginning. If the goal is to make a chipper payment then the more wood put on the ground the better job is done. If, this is my truth, the goal is to balance the harm to the tree and the needs/desires of the client, then, GENERALLY!, less is better. Am I decieving myself? Nope! I know what I'm doing and the consequnces of tthose actions. I've been in treework for over thirty years, full time for about twenty five. I base my truth on what I've observed and what I've been taught and learned. 

Trees are healthier??? Healthier than what? Healthier than if you hadn’t pruned them? 

*Healthier than if they were removed, for sure. Healthier since the more leaves there are on the tree the more food the tree makes to support itself. When leaves are removed the food factory is removed. Also, limb removal leads to root loss. This is known and accepted science. Any arbo book will document these facts.

Tom, you refer to the science of tree care when you speak of Starch tests, Twig elongation, and Chromatic comparisons. Where is the science to support the above statements?.. 

*These are standard measures of tree health. I don't have the time to teach on these forums. Google is one of the best ways to teach yourself. If you want to learn more about starch tests, read Shigo. Like I've written before, discussion forums aren't always the best places to learn. It is your responsibility to educate your self in your profession. If you don't, you have a career not a profession. The science is well established. Just because I can't , or don't have the time to, quote chapter and verse, doesn't make the science unavailable. If you want to know more about chromatic comparison, write to me off line. I couple of summers ago a grad student worked for me who did her MS work on that subject. I'm sure that she would be willing to share the data with you. It might require you to write directly to her and pay for the copying of her MS paper, but I'm sure that you'll be convinced of the practice's viability. She recieved her MS from the University of Minnesota so, for me, that establishes credibility. I know most of the people on her review committee and they are knowledgable, credible people.

If anyone thinks that I advocate not pruning any tree, you sure don't know me. I do advocate a lot less pruning than is being done though. Getting into arguements about damage detracts from moving the discussion forward. If I didn't accept that I do some damage, I would find a new profession. I base my decisions on the outcomes and consequences of my actions. 

Tom


----------



## Stumper (Nov 29, 2002)

Murph, In answer to your question regarding selling work on RB's birch. I'm confident that there are some dead limbs scattered throughout the canopy.
Mr. Customer, do you like the low hanging limbs? Yes? Okay then I recommend removing the dead wood (x size and above) and taking out any broken branches.
or 
No? Okay I recommend removing dead and broken limbs and removing growth from the underside and tips of these lower limbs. We should be able to get you some clearance without removing any major limbs and retain the general shape of the tree.


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 30, 2002)

Tom,
I appreciate you sharing so much knowledge with us here and all the study it must have taken to learn so much. My pont is that we arbos don't do what is good for trees... Is removing a hazardous tree good for it? No, it's good for people. IMO our job is to do what's good for people by serving their needs, while doing as little harm to trees as necessary. 
Is pruning good for trees? IMO rarely... So we again do it for people... there must be some benfit to it for the people or they wouldn't pay for it. MAny times the benefit to people is that it makes them feel good cause they think they are "taking care of their trees", when the trees in fact are better off left alone. And that is where the salesmanship and money comes in. 
Stumper,
You said you'd sell the deadwood if not a light pruning on the pic RB posted... That might make the tree look really good... I'd sell it too.. but does it do the tree any good? 
You asked if I had after pics of the red oak. I took them yesterday. So here are the pics. This one is the before, which was posted earlier.
God Bless,
Daniel


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 30, 2002)

And here is the after pic.
The tree looks good and the customer was real happy and thought he got his money's worth. But did pruning do the tree any good?

And did I tell him that the tree would look better, we'd get the deadwood out, BUT pruning is bad for the tree's health? 
I charged $950 for the job. What would you have sold to this customer?

God Bless All,
Daniel


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Nov 30, 2002)

Murph,

I'm spitting out the hook after I finish this post. Your cartwheeling through this thread is making less and less sense.

There are very few choices or decisions that are 100% good or bad. Most times, we end up in the wide range in the middle of the scale. 

Since you seem to be the one saying that all pruning is actually beneficial to trees, take some time and share with us your documented plan for dealing with dead wood in trees. No one liners or answering questions with questions. Put something on the line. Show me what you know and believe. Otherwise these sort of threads are nothing but coffee table talk.

Splook...I'm done with this thread...

Tom


----------



## Stumper (Nov 30, 2002)

Murph, The oak looks good. Thinner than I would have left it but it looks good. I would have sold a similar op but wouldn't have got that much $. (Pardon me while I kick myself for undercharging.) 
Is what I proposed for the birch beneficial to the tree? I would say yes, although it probably isn't very significant. When trees self prune they frequently due so through decay. Cutting out dead wood via targeted cuts reduces the incidence of decay since the compartmentalized wood is covered by callus tisue quickly instead of a dead branch rotting out of a deep collar/socket. In any case, making trees look good is a worthy end(IMO) provided it doesn't greatly endanger the tree's health. The operations that do pose serious health risks also make trees look awful(again IMO).


----------



## murphy4trees (Dec 1, 2002)

Does anyone know the science on this?
Does pruning out the deadwood benefit the tree's health?
I have a 4 big oaks in the backyard of a house we bought in May.
One of the four is in serious decline... lots of deadwood, but nothing too big or over the house or driveway.. I haven't pruned that tree yet nor do I plan to do so anytime soon. So far all I've done is some minor pruing on the lower branches of two others to open up a view of the park behind us, from the porch. All of them are stressed from butchery, gaffing, and the dumping of NPK on the lawn regularly by the former owner... dry summers have't helped either. These are important shade trees.. south side of the house and I hate A/C.
So for now I'll pick up the sticks when they fall and may do some organic fertilization and possibly radial trenching... but no pruning.
Tom,
Apparently I haven't done a good job of explaining myself. Work has been busy and I haven't had much time to devote here, though this thread has brought up a lot for me. Hope to get to it later.
God Bless All,
Daniel
This pic is an after shot of the whole red oak. I think this pruning was not beneficial to the tree. The reason I pruned this tree was for the money $$$. And the tree looks good and the customer is happy.


----------



## treeclimber165 (Dec 1, 2002)

The oaks down here keep their leaves year around, so it's difficult for me to tell. But it looks like you hit it a little hard, Daniel. It looks similar to lots of hard pruning I see around here. I don't like trimming out leads 20'-25' before the first leaf but many around here trim every tree like that. I generally like to stick with only pruning out dead or dying, structurally unsound, and the occassional small (1"-1½") limb that might be seriously inhibiting the path of my lifeline (I call that 'selective pruning'). Most of the guys I climb for want to see stripped out leads, but I'm slowly winning them over by example. They rarely follow behind me and cut out healthy interior growth with the polesaw any more.


----------



## rbtree (Dec 1, 2002)

Looks a bit much to me too, Murph. But, around these parts, some good companies tend to prune like that or even moreso. We dont get as much sun as most parts of the country, so people want less shade, not more. 

Anyhow, I played with your pic a bit....lightened it up, and put in some color that wasn't there


----------



## murphy4trees (Dec 1, 2002)

This tree was pruned by Big john from trbz..
I actually was only on the job for a few minutes...
To my knowledge... he only took out two live branches that were over 3", and there wasn't much brush when he was finished.. though the pic does look like he took a lot.. I know he worked every tip... he always does.
The tree hadn't been pruned in at least 25-30 years and there was plenty of dead.
And you may recall that earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I could tell the customer wanted a lot taken out.... wanted to "get his money's worth". Although I did give him the "more is not better" talk, keeping the customer happy may have been on John's mind.
After we got finished the customer told me the tree had some die back, which I was not aware of. John also said the tree was "not happy"... some kind of blisters on the bark. So there may have been a lot of dead tips.
I'll post more before and after pics on other pruning jobs.
God bless,
Daniel


----------



## murphy4trees (Dec 2, 2002)

Here is another oak Big John pruned....
This tree is relatively healthy, not too much deadwood, though there is a couple big rubbing branches on the backside which we left.. Is there some kind of abrasion resistant material we can cover the bark with? Another option would be lifting and cabling the upper branch. I have a video of the rub, but no stills.
I think John did a great job of pruning this tree, though I would have preferred he left a few more of the lower suckers, over the driveway. The tree looks great and he took some weight off the tips growing over the building. The customer had a couple branches in an adjascent oak come down this summer and he wanted to keep the trees safe.
So I sold the job, though in my thinking it was not necessary. I think the tree would have been better off left alone. The customer is happy. How many of you would have ecouraged the customer to leave the tree alone? If I had done so, he might have called someone else, which is taking a chance on some hack mutilating this majestic tree.. 
On a sentimental note, I went to school at this building starting at age 2. So this tree had an early influence on my life.
God Bless All,
Daniel
So here is the before pic.


----------



## murphy4trees (Dec 2, 2002)

Here is Big John working teh tips out by the Spruce


----------



## murphy4trees (Dec 2, 2002)

Whoops!!


----------



## murphy4trees (Dec 2, 2002)

Here is the after pic


----------

