Reply to thread

I don't get why that language about removal was included in the first place. If repeated pruning is called for, removal should already have been considered and rejected. Is removal supposed to be preferred over multiple pruning?

Even if the expense were the same, repeated prunig would be amortized over a long period where removal would be a major one time expense... with the potential for causing additional problems with nearby trees like sun scald and wind damage.

With a healthy tree I'll take two or three prunings over a number of years before a removal anytime.

Seem like a completely useless statement to me. Better to keep standards simple without useless, sleepy language.

Maybe I'm just not grasping the reasoning behind the standard.