Cabling advice on 200ft firs...

[texican65]

Hi there. I've got 2 old fir trees in my front yard that are 180'-200' tall. The trees are as wide as I can hold my arms open spread apart, they've stood the test of time, but they need some serious maintenance/cleanup. They've got widow makers hanging all over, some that are 5-6" in diameter. They just need a good wind thinning and cleanup, as I worry about them in some of the strong wind we get here in the foothills of the Cascades. If one fell, it'd go right through my house. The trees were also topped by the previous owner 15-20 years ago, and there's A LOT of new growth up there, with a crotch now where the trees were topped so long ago. I've had 6 different tree service companies come by to take look and give an estimate, 3 of them said that the trees were too big and they couldn't do the work. One company with about 10 years of experience, said they would send a climber up each tree to clean them up and access the situation at the top..more than likely cable the two new growth tops together coming out of each crotch on each tree...they said they would use the mesh/dynamic cabling, that it was better for the trees and they would grow respond better to this type of cabling.
The other company has been around almost 40 years. They have equipment, cranes, boom trucks, and said they would send a man up in a bucket to clean up the trees and cable the tops, but they would use the old school steel cable.

The 3rd company with about 10 years experience said they would just top the trees again and we wouldn't have to worry about them blowing over in a wind storm anymore.

I'd rather not have them topped again, I dont think thats common practice anymore? And i'm not sure which company to use, the tried and true veteran thats been around for decades with old school techniques, or the relatively newer company with different ways and ideas. Both will do the job for about the same price, and both include clean-up. Whats going to promote better tree health and growing conditions/strength, a dynamic cable....or the old school steel cable...or both?

Thank you,

Dow

 

[ATH]

You are correct that you don't want them topped again. Don't call that company back.

As far as the dynamic vs. steel cable...there are pros and cons. I prefer the newer dynamic cable personally. But there are places where steel is a better option. What matters most is that it is installed correctly regardless of which is used. In addition to proper attachment, it needs to be high enough to do good. If the trees are 200' tall.....how high up in the tree is the split? The cable should be about 2/3 of the way from the split to the top of the tree. How high is the bucket they are going to use to install the cable from? (if it can't reach that high, are they going to just put it as high as they can reach or will the send a climber up? - likewise, can they reach all of the dead wood that needs to come out?). one thing I like about "Company A" is you said they told you they'd assess the situation before making a decision. Perhaps "Company B" will do the same (I would like to think they will), but it is often difficult to know what it looks like from the ground and setting a plan in place without full knowledge doesn't always end well.

Experience (whether it is 10 years or 40 years) is not equal to time in business. There are companies around here who have been in business for 30 years...but as a friend calls it: "they have 1 day of experience repeated for the last 30 years". They haven't bothered to learn anything new or advance in their profession. I am NOT saying the decision to use steel cable is reflective of that...not at all. Just food for thought. I have no idea if either of the two are in that boat or not I'm just suggesting that you make your evaluation based on expertise, qualifications, and your comfort level with the folks you are talking to.

 

[texican65]

Very well put ATH, thank you very much for the insight. The split is probably 3/4 of the way up, not exactly sure how many feet specifically...you can see the split in the photo on the tree on the right. What is the preferred method of attachment in this day and age with a fir tree in this particular situation? And...I would assume with a cable comes annual inspections and maintenance, with periodical adjustment? Would it be best to just wind thin these trees/remove all the dead debris and not cable them? They've stood for 100+ years so far, I feel like a cable might keep them safer/stronger, but also make the tree become dependent on the cable?

Dow

 

[ATH]

Cable or no cable decision is better made with an up close evaluation of the fork.

Steel cable is attached with lags or through bolts. Dynamic cable (rope) is generally looped around the limb with plenty of space for growth and a sleeve so the rope doesn't rub against the bark. Both need inspected. Steel cable will have a longer life.

 

[BC WetCoast]

If there are no targets under the trees (houses, sheds, garages, driveways etc) that could be damaged when a fir branch spears down in a wind, then you could just let the wind thin them. If that's the case, then do you need to worry about the tops.

Before you make the decision which form of cabling to do, you need to have the old topping cut inspected. If the new tops are weakly attached or significant rot at the topping cut, then retopping them isn't a bad recommendation, in my opinion.

I've worked on many multitopped firs, although none as tall as this, and I haven't seen the individual tops failing as a major problem. If they are cabled, and one fails will they both fail? Cabling is usually done to prevent a Y crotched tree from splitting. When firs get topped, their branches don't react that like. The top branches usually grow horizontal for a bit and then turn vertical. So you end up with tops that look more like football goal posts (not the best analogy, but as good as it gets tonight). To be honest, I'm not sure how effective cabling will be. If it was spruce, then I would agree because I've seen many previously topped spruce break the new weak tops.

Just out of curiosity have you measured the heights of the trees or just eyeballed them. I don't understand why a company would say they'll bring a bucket to clean up a tree when the bucket (most are 65') reaches a 1/3 of the tree at best.

My suggestion is to do what firs do naturally, have a climber go up the tree, remove all the dead and broken branches, inspect the topping cut, thin out to leaders above the topping cut by 30% and shorten (tip back) some of those longer, larger branches in the mid-canopy.

We been working on a five fir removal project, ranging from 80-130'. The 80 footer (was 130') was struck by lightning (others were too but not as bad), then a month later a storm blew out the top and drove it though their RV parked below (through the roof, floor and into the asphalt). Too bad, none of them had been topped.

 

[ArtB]

180'-200' tall. The trees are as wide as I can hold my arms open spread apart

Not to criticize, but from the photo looks like only about 140 ft?
If it really is 200 ft, might be one of the tallest D Fir remaining in King County, and you should post it (and measurement technique) on the monumental tree web site,
https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/records/usa/washington/

100% agree with other that topping a fir is a hack job. A neighbor let a 'service co' top his 3 120 ft D firs, 10 years later he had to remove them as the tops rotted.

I cut down a black cottonwood in Renton suburbs that measured 167 ft by tape measure when on the ground, would not have cut it if I'd have know it was the tallest black cottonwood in the world according to some web sites (but not the fattest).
https://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/trees/populustrichocarpa/records/

BTW, the photo logo is a downed 146 ft height black cottonwood.

 

[texican65]

Thanks for all the resourceful information everybody. Unfortunately, the trees are over my driveway, and very close to my house, so just natural wind thinning could pose a hazard to our home and vehicles...or us...if in the right spot at the right time.

ArtB...thanks for the wisdom. I'm just going by what one of the tree service companies told me. The man doing the estimate had some sort of device with a wheel on it and a number roller, sort of like an odometer on a truck, and he adjusted some sort of angle measure on the thing and began walking out away from the tree to a certain spot in the yard, he told me they were 180-200ft. i'm not a professional like many of you, so I was just going by what the man told me.

I decided to go with company B, who'd been around the longest. Not sure if it was the wisest choice? They brought a bucket truck and lifted a climber in each tree as far as it would reach, a little less than 1/2 way up, and they climbed to the top of each tree, cleaning up small dead branches along the way. They inspected the split and said there was no sign of rot, but that it would probably be best to cable the two trunks anyways, so they did, about 3/4 of the way up from the split where it was topped so long ago. Once cabling was done, they thinned out the new growth up top, and descended to the bottom, removing dead limbs along the way. I thought they could have thinned out the top more, and questioned them about it, but they assured me that they did it correctly. Hopefully they did? I'm not a professional, so I really dont know. Took them a little over 3 hours, $950 a tree. We'll see how they hold up over then next decade I guess.

Thanks again,

Dow

 

[ATH]

Nothing in your description raises flags...sounds like they did good from here. Not sure about the "looks good, but we'll cable it anyhow" but I wasn't looking at it in person.

They charged the same for both trees even though one was cabled and the other wasn't?

How many were on the crew? (Just curiois...at $600 per hour...)

 

[texican65]

ATH, they cabled both trees, both had a split where they were topped long ago. I wasn't very thrilled to hear them say they were going to cable them after they told me there was no rot and everything looked healthy...and especially after discussing with you. But, these guys are in the business and are trained on how to handle each different situation, and I am not. Doesn't mean I can't study and learn a little, but sometimes I guess I've just got to trust the professionals.
Each company was jut about the same price. The first company, that eventually backed out, wanted $1000 a tree no cleanup. Second company that backed out wanted $900 a tree with no cleanup. Company A wanted $1800 for both plus cleanup, company B that I went with charged $1900 cleanup included. And company C wanted $2600 with cleanup. The guys that came had a bucket truck operator that lifted 2 climbers, then he took off. So, a climber in each tree and a ground man clearing debris and running a chipper.

Dow

 

[ATH]

At this point, I'd just assume you have to trust their decision. Didn't see it in person...just the way the wording was conveyed sounded odd. I like to assume the best of people and it sounds like everything else is on the up.

 

[texican65]

Thanks again for your interest and assistance, I learned some valuable information from you, and the experience as a whole.

Dow