# My First Decent Sized Tree



## Lumberjack (Nov 29, 2003)

I finished cleaning up my first decent sized tree today. It measures 59" at DBH. Kinda makes me feel good. Let me see if I can add a pic. 

P.S. It might be huge. I nocked off the tip of my index finger and it sucks to write, cut a steak, or click a mouse, much less type. Oh and what is the best way to resize?


----------



## rborist1 (Nov 29, 2003)

:Eye:


----------



## Lumberjack (Nov 29, 2003)

The top of the bar in a chainsaw got pinched slightly and I opened it up with a screwdriver, but the metal was mighy stiff and the screwdriver slipped, knocking off the tip of my finger, the pad part (skin and a little meat).


----------



## Lumberjack (Nov 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RockyJSquirrel _
> *I'm not trying to pick, just attempting some constructive criticism. I've been told repeatedly that I come across as abrasive and insulting so deal with it. It ain't you.
> 
> 1- DBH means Diameter at Breast Height. This will be about 4' off the ground (even with your nipples when standing next to the tree). From your picture it looks like your stump cut was about 59" but DBH appears to be less than 36". Still a decent size tree but it isn't 59" DBH.
> ...



Anyway. 

1. I did measure the tree at my nipple height (DBH=4.5') It measured 4'11" of 59". I cut it under may anus (around there) and measured it and it was right at 4.5'

2. Look again, the wood is there for the hinge, it just snaped like a mis match cut b/c the wood was so dry. Also I cut the two leaders off and sent that piece over (it was only 10-12' long)


----------



## rborist1 (Nov 29, 2003)

:Eye:


----------



## Gord (Nov 29, 2003)

resize 

second resize 

I can never figure out how people have the ability to post a pic but not to resize it.

It is a big tree, good for you to have the wherewithal to get it on the ground safely.

As the squirrel already pointed out never underestimate the importance of a proper undercut/backcut. Never cut your holding wood and always make sure you have a clean V - it appears you may have a wee dutchman in your undercut.


----------



## Lumberjack (Nov 29, 2003)

Zoom in, it is a proper cut, the hinge snapped. If anything the hinge it to big, but I poped it over with a pry bar, it was sitting on the hinge before I sent it over. The wood in the center was to brittle to hinge. I did make a proper cut.

I figured out, I was just askin how to resize. I didn't like paint, so I used Microsoft Image Editor.


Carl


----------



## NeTree (Nov 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lumberjack _
> *Zoom in, it is a proper cut, the hinge snapped. If anything the hinge it to big, but I poped it over with a pry bar, it was sitting on the hinge before I sent it over. The wood in the center was to brittle to hinge. I did make a proper cut.
> 
> I figured out, I was just askin how to resize. I didn't like paint, so I used Microsoft Image Editor.
> ...



Carl, 

That's not a hinge in yer pic, but a snap-cut. There is a distinct and very important difference.

Anytime your backcut goes beyond your notch (and in your pic it does, by about 2"), you no longer have a proper notch, but a "snap-cut".

In a proper notch, the holding hinge wood fibers are working on tention, in a snap-cut, they are only holding by fiber shear adhesion, a weaker hold.

Not trying to break yer balls, but it's important.


----------



## murphy4trees (Nov 29, 2003)

It looks to me like there is no hinge, though the stump is not completely visible. I've seen even world class climbers make bypass cuts and have hinges seize. Learning the mechanics of good hinging seems a lot more important than measuring the DBH accurately. When a bypass occurs on the facing cuts, as the tree begins to move slightly, the kerf of the bypass will close and cause the tree to stop moving... usually the only thing that will start it moving again is when the holding wood fails... At that point the hinge has no effect on the fall of the tree...
The below pic shows a good notch with no bypass... Good luck and stay safe...


----------



## Lumberjack (Nov 29, 2003)

Agreed good notch. 

I noted the cuts on this one. The top should say "End of back cut"


----------



## NeTree (Nov 29, 2003)

Nice notch Murph, no toenail. 

The backcut should be made level with the apex of the notch cut, and shouldn't bypass it.


----------



## NeTree (Nov 29, 2003)

Did you at least have fun and learn a few things Carl?


----------



## Lumberjack (Nov 29, 2003)

I admit I made a mistake. I looked back in other pics and it was a glorified snap cut. I wasn't concered with the direction (because of the length). The bottom cut of the notch extended past the diagnol one, thereby making it a snap cut. I do however undersnand hinges, and should have clarified that earlier and relized what had happened. I am always carful to cut the notch without getting to the hinge or leaving a kerf behind the notch, but I didn't check this time. 

That being said I recant what I said earlier and agree that that was a snap cut, and I understand why. I want to emphasize that I do understand hinges and this was in no way a critical cut.


Carl


----------



## Lumberjack (Nov 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by netree _
> *Nice notch Murph, no toenail.
> 
> The backcut should be made level with the apex of the notch cut, and shouldn't bypass it. *



I thought (read know, but more politely as to not be an abbrasive @$$) that on a 45 degree notch the cut should be made approx. 2" above the apex to decrease the chance of the butt of the log kicking back over the stump and striking the feller.


----------



## Lumberjack (Nov 29, 2003)

The veiw counter must be off this thread has been up for a little over an 1:30 and it has 1600+ views!?!


Carl


----------



## NeTree (Nov 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lumberjack _
> *I thought (read know, but more politely as to not be an abbrasive @$$) that on a 45 degree notch the cut should be made approx. 2" above the apex to decrease the chance of the butt of the log kicking back over the stump and striking the feller. *



That's common in books, but it's BS as far as I'm concered, and everybody I've ever worked for/with. It has no basis in reality. 
Make your back-cut level with the bottom of your notch.

It makes it alot harder to bypass, since your cuts matching are more plainly apparant.

If the tree really wants to kick back, it will easily jump that 2" shelf anyhow, due to the nice little ramp you cut as part of your notch, assuming the butt isn't still 3 feet in the air from the jump.

And why would you be close enough to get hit, anyways? Once the tree is going, you don't need to be there. You should already be headed off on your retreat path, and well out of harms' way.


----------



## NeTree (Nov 29, 2003)

on that note:

We get a little heavy with eachother in our critiques sometimes, but we all mean well for eachother.... even Rocky! 

Like any family, there will always be feuds.

By all means, keep posting yer pics and asking yer questions.


----------



## Dobber (Nov 30, 2003)

*bad notch*

I think the point everyone is trying to make is this as you can see by my attachment the Red shows where your notch should stop, the purple looks to me like you cut about 6 to 8 inches further into your notch (Dutched) and what is circled in blue is the wood that snapped when you cut it. this is not holding wood this is a snap cut that just happens to have a notch in front of it. hope you take this for what it is, not talking down to you would just rather not hear about you in the news killing or hurting yourself or someone else.


----------



## Dobber (Nov 30, 2003)

*better pic*

sorry better pic here


----------



## Gord (Nov 30, 2003)

> That's common in books, but it's BS as far as I'm concered, and everybody I've ever worked for/with. It has no basis in reality.



I disagree here. In many (most) cases it's true that there is no need for the back cut to be above the undercut. However it's a practice that I adhere to as well as most fellows I have ever worked with because it can at times prevent serious oopsies.

Consider felling a large top on a single stem plumb tree. I often feel the top pushing the tree back opposite the direction of fall as the top begins to lean and then rebound back as the top is breaking off, pushing the top well ahead of the tree. It's very clear that there is some forward momentum imparted as the top often lands as much as 15' away from the tree. So it also follows that if the holding wood breaks earlier than expected or circumstances dictate that there is only a thin strip of holding wood the butt of the top could end up in your lap. Which is not something I want.

Another situation is felling trees that have the potential to get hung up in other trees. If a falling tree strikes a stationary one the shock/twist may be enough to break the holding wood while the tree is still relatively upright. Without a shelf to hold the butt in place it is much more likely to kick past the stump and do all sorts of wild and wonderful high speed maneuvers. It may not always be necessary, but I still always do it.


----------



## Gord (Nov 30, 2003)

Dobber that pic you just posted is over 5mb. That much data could be a high quality 45sec video file. Not to mention that many on this board don't have the time or bandwidth to download a file that size.

Images should be saved as half quality JPEGs and should be no wider than about 800 pixels.

If anyone needs a program to convert and resize image files go to http://www.download.com and get IrfanView. It'll do anything you need.

edit: not to discourage anyone from posting pics, I love it when a pic accompanies a post but just so that we can actually _see_ the pics-that would be nice!


----------



## NeTree (Nov 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Gord _
> *Consider felling a large top on a single stem plumb tree. I often feel the top pushing the tree back opposite the direction of fall as the top begins to lean and then rebound back as the top is breaking off, pushing the top well ahead of the tree. It's very clear that there is some forward momentum imparted as the top often lands as much as 15' away from the tree. So it also follows that if the holding wood breaks earlier than expected or circumstances dictate that there is only a thin strip of holding wood the butt of the top could end up in your lap. Which is not something I want.*



Here, you're taking about an entirely different situation; topping. In this case, it does hold some validity.



> _Originally posted by Gord _
> *Another situation is felling trees that have the potential to get hung up in other trees. If a falling tree strikes a stationary one the shock/twist may be enough to break the holding wood while the tree is still relatively upright. Without a shelf to hold the butt in place it is much more likely to kick past the stump and do all sorts of wild and wonderful high speed maneuvers. It may not always be necessary, but I still always do it. *



Here, it's more of a logger-style technique. No self-respecting arborist would try to free-fall a tree that is going to get hung up, and DAMAGE, a tree that isn't coming down. He also wouldn't try to free-fall a tree that is likely to hang even IF the other tree was being removed. 

However, in this event, you're still better off without that shelf, since you can now drag the butt end of the hung tree back to free it. 

As I said, you shouldn't be anywhere near the tree after it's headed down anyways. If this worries you, you're doing it wrong.

"Oopsies" are entirely avoidable.

JMEHO


----------



## NeTree (Nov 30, 2003)

And Gord, Irfanview is the balls when it domes to dealing with pics. I agree completely on that!


----------



## NeTree (Nov 30, 2003)

Here.

Popped right up for me! Cable kicks a$$!


----------



## Stumper (Nov 30, 2003)

Eric, I'll side with Gord on this one.-You are correct that making the backcut on the same plane works but making the backcut above the notch has a couple of benefits. 1-The debatable one of keeping the butt from jumping the stump. 2. Enhanced control! This one is very real and significant. Watch how a higher backcut operates in some small stuff that you hinge very slowly. When the cuts are on the same plane you have a working hinge that begins breaking almost as soon as it begins bending-it is a controlled break and gives decent control. Make the backcut up a little. Typically as the tree begins to move the hinge will split down from the front of the backcut's kerf to the level of the back of the notch. This creates a strap of hingewood that can bend in an arc and hold much further into the fall. On the times that a strap doesn't split, control is at least as good as cutting on the same plane. Most of the time the step permits at least some fibers to flex longer and control is better.


----------



## NeTree (Nov 30, 2003)

I understand the mechanics of your description quite well. And I won't argue the point much further, but remember the object of the hinge is to commit the tree to a given direction.

It doesn't take a hinge that holds till the tree is on the ground to do that.

At the risk of cofusing the issue, there are species of trees that warrant that, and some do not. 

Wedging can also be an issue with an overcut of as little as an inch, even more with two or three.

I have the thirty years' experience to tell the difference- Carl does not. I feel he'd be alot safer doing as I suggested, at least until he gains the experience to decide for himself.

Not belittling your expertise, just weighing all factors, and outlining a best-course.


----------



## geofore (Nov 30, 2003)

*critical cut*

It is a critical cut because it appears to be a couple of trees grown together leaving you with a weak spot to think about before you climb or cut. It gave us something to critique and the counter is right on the number of hits, whether it was read all the way through is another matter. A tree with an inclusion that large has a problem if you try to drop it in one piece, it may split at the weak point (inclusion) as you are cutting and go the wrong way or split at the inclusion when the first half of the tree hits the ground sending the second half the tree sliding sideways off the piece that hit the ground first. When you can see in the bark pattern an inclusion as well defind as this one is you need to remember that the pattern is there due to a defect in the wood behind it. This is the kind of tree defect that would have me thinking I should put a cable or chain around the trunk and pull it up tight with a ratchet puller before I climb it to remove the top and spars. They do split when you least expect it.


----------



## Gord (Nov 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by netree _
> *Here, it's more of a logger-style technique. No self-respecting arborist would try to free-fall a tree that is going to get hung up, and DAMAGE, a tree that isn't coming down. He also wouldn't try to free-fall a tree that is likely to hang even IF the other tree was being removed. *



Agreed that this is something that is more of a logger style situation, however when housing complexes and other large property owners need the hazardous weed trees taken down in the greenbelt behind their property they don't call the loggers in from the bush they call arborists. Often free falling the trees is the most efficient and safe way to get them on the ground. If they hang up in another weed tree and knock a limb or two off so be it. I'm not saying that I encourage fellows felling trees at other trees but when it does happen, I would rather have a shelf to hold the butt on the stump until I buck it down. Free felling trees with wedges and dutchmen shold be part of a well rounded arborist's experience.


----------



## NeTree (Nov 30, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Gord _
> *If they hang up in another weed tree and knock a limb or two off so be it*



Allowing other trees (even "weed treed" as you call them) to be damaged or disfigured by not taking the extra 15 minutes to drop in two or three pieces what wouldn't make it in one, is uprofessional and inexcusable at best...

Rememer... arborists CARE for TREES.

Do the job right, or don't do it at all. That's what seperates us from the hacks.


----------



## SilverBlue (Nov 30, 2003)

Hi lumberjack, the tree came down without hurting anyone so that’s good but I have to ask, did you consider the possibility of rot or the tree splitting in two? Looking at the picture it seems that you got lucky with this one, but placing the hinge right in that weak area of the tree sure could have put a brown spot on the fruit of the looms, know what I mean? Did you free fall it or was it roped at the top and pulled?
Rob.


----------



## Dobber (Nov 30, 2003)

*sorry*

sorry about the pic, I have cable conection and dont usualy think of these things, still new to the computer thing aswell.


----------



## UNBforester (Nov 30, 2003)

Lumberjack:
All in all, looks like a good tree for you to call your first decent sized one. However, looking at one of your photos when you were climbing the tree I have only one question?

Where's your hardhat or helmut? 

Not rippin' on you, I'm just a stickler for PPE.

Dave


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Nov 30, 2003)

> * owners need the hazardous weed trees taken down in the greenbelt behind their property . If they hang up in another weed tree and knock a limb or two off so be it.
> * If you can routinely rationalize collateral damage like that you're a logger. AS netree said, arborists care for trees, and do not do damage unnecessarily.
> *Free felling trees with wedges and dutchmen shold be part of a well rounded arborist's experience. *


The first experience an arborist needs is risk assessment. If you whack everything that someone calls a weed or a "hazard" without making up your own mind, just for the $$ you are a logger not an arborist. Nothing against loggers, the world needs them too, but if you don't have a say in what stays and what goes, and you won't take a few extra minutes to avoid damaging other trees, then you're a hack for hire.

If you give your Dutchman a good wedgie, doesn't he get mad at you? Either way, that's not arboriculture.


----------



## Wackemoff (Dec 2, 2003)

Been lurking here for quite a while and learning a lot so I thought this would be a pretty good thread to jump in on.

Thought you pros could take a look at how I cut and critique my method. I cut sawlogs on my own land to feed my bandmill so I guess you could call me an amateur logger amonst other things. 

Had a hollow hard maple leaning over my shed and figured it was time to take it down before an ice storm did the job for me.

Here is the  *notch cut.* I didn't want the notch deep because I was afraid of getting into the hollow part of the log.

I  *bore cut* from each side of the tree to get my hinge. Bar wasn't long enough to clean the tree.

I bore cut a triangle on the backside before I established the hinge so I could get a couple of wedges in. Figured I could push the tree over with the wedges but since it was leaning over my shed didn't want to take any chances so I also had a winch line in the treetop. When I stopped to take a picture of the bore cut for the hinge I lost my concentration. Hinge wasn't quite the way I wanted it to be but it didn't break until the tree was *on the ground* and it went where it was suposed to go.


----------



## Lumberjack (Dec 2, 2003)

SilverBlue

"Hi lumberjack, the tree came down without hurting anyone so that’s good but I have to ask, did you consider the possibility of rot or the tree splitting in two? Looking at the picture it seems that you got lucky with this one, but placing the hinge right in that weak area of the tree sure could have put a brown spot on the fruit of the looms, know what I mean? Did you free fall it or was it roped at the top and pulled?
Rob."

I cut the two trunks seperately, and I cut the one on the right of the pic toward the camera, and the left side went over where the first one was beside the house. Then I cut the bottom piece over, which was only 12ish' long and I free fell that with a pry bar.

I wouldn't have considered felling with one cut on the bottom, to many other trees to protect. The bottom of the trunk had a very little amount of rot supprisingly. 


"Lumberjack:
Where's your hardhat or helmut? 

Not rippin' on you, I'm just a stickler for PPE."
Dave

I don't have one as of now. I know that is bad and I am stupid for not having one. I will be getting one soon, hopefully.


Did anyone notice the Griswals across the rode in the trailer? They lit up the whole area.

Carl


----------



## geofore (Dec 2, 2003)

*low cut*

Wackemoff, A notch that low means a lot of bending over or working on your knees. What was the purpose of cutting so low to the ground? Cut 2' off the butt and see if you would not have better wood to work with. Any wood you mill that close to the butt has a tendency to twist when drying. You have better control of your saw if you are standing to do the work and you are on your feet if you need to make a hasty exit. 

Maybe it's my bad back, but I would have cut it a bit higher off the ground and gone back to the stump after the tree was down. You are more likely to find beter holding wood higher off the ground. That butt swell is not the best place to do a notch, it gets cut off before you mill the wood anyway. Your notch is too low and too shallow, IMHO.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Dec 2, 2003)

*Re: low cut*



> _Originally posted by geofore _
> * You have better control of your saw if you are standing to do the work and you are on your feet if you need to make a hasty exit. *




I agree for the most part. However, years ago I tired of having to ALAP the stump afterwards. Nowadays, on trees that allow it, I make the horizontal cut ALMOST in the dirt, with the back-cut a little higher.

Whats left is grinder ready, and instead of having to deal with another thick slab to load, it goes with the butt. 

But thats just me!


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Dec 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: low cut*

[QUOTE[ * I make the horizontal cut ALMOST in the dirt, with the back-cut a little higher. Whats left is grinder ready, and instead of having to deal with another thick slab to load, it goes with the butt. 
But thats just me!  *[/QUOTE]

No it's not just you, it's me too! It's just like branch pruning: a 3-part cut is the way to go if there is any question about control. If control is clear, then 2 will do. You lose some control on a 2-part cut on branch or on stump, but save time and convenience.


----------



## Gord (Dec 2, 2003)

I often make me last cuts ALAP for felling the spar, often make the undercut on my knees. It's a lot nicer bucking up a log than a stump. Guy I think that Butch meant that he make a horizontal lower cut for his undercut rather than a bypass type cut. IMO


----------



## MasterBlaster (Dec 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: low cut*



> _Originally posted by Guy Meilleur _
> * You lose some control on a 2-part cut on branch or on stump, but save time and convenience. *




If you cut out all the buh-tra-ses before you make your back-cut, I believe you can control the tree as well as if you would have made it at knee/waist level.  

Hey Guy you shoulda been there with me today, I woulda liked a little feedback from an old 'guy'!


----------

