ANSI Pruning Standards--Comment?

[treeseer]

your picture looks more like it was sheared than topped. The cuts are very small.

True, no cuts were over 4", but still the city considered it unrestorable and said it had to come down. I peoposed restoration; we'll see what the real authorities, the attorneys, decide.

But seriously there is no difference between shearing and topping other than size right?

Sorry Eric now you wait ten years to have a say. You should have separate standards for construction; there are in the usa and uk. It's not pruning, right?

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

New language on Structural Pruning and Root Pruning--positive additions well written imo. I had 7 areas of concern before I got to 5.9. Utility:

4.3.3--delete "internodal"--pollarding cuts can and should be made at nodes.

yes, it shoulde read nodal cuts, I do not have my copy unpacked. what is the definission of node in the old Rev.?

5.7.2.4--delete "Water" and just say "sprouts".

watersprouts are succulent fast growing sprouts from the basal area on up, how are these not water sprouts?

Though I do preffer just sprouts myself.

 

[treeseer]

yes, it shoulde read nodal cuts, I do not have my copy unpacked. what is the definission of node in the old Rev.?

"Node" is not defined in the standards. Considering that it is the natural target for pruning--20 years ago Shigo said that reduction cuts should be made at nodes OR laterals--I think it needs to be in there. An earlier comment here was that pollarding should start at internodes becasue there will be more sprouting there. I don't think this is generally the case--most species have plenty of dormant buds, and can make adventitious buds just as well, at nodes.

watersprouts are succulent fast growing sprouts from the basal area on up, how are these not water sprouts?

At the base or roots they are called suckers; that's how the Glossary broke it down. The main thing to make clear is, not all epicormic shoots are undesirable.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

The main thing to make clear is, not all epicormic shoots are undesirable.

So you're reason for altering the language is that watersprout is often taken in a perjorative sence?

 

[treeseer]

So you're reason for altering the language is that watersprout is often taken in a perjorative sence?

No, it's because many times epicormics should be retained, but the current and proposed standard says watersprouts and epicormics are the same thing. "Watersprout" IS pejorative; most of them need to go, right?

 

[treeseer]

Bump. Today is the deadline for comments. fwiw here are mine.

ANSI Pruning 2006

2.3.2 Implementation moved and strengthened—excellent addition!

New language on Structural Pruning and Root Pruning--positive additions well written. imo. :

4.3.3--delete "internodal"--pollarding cuts can be made at nodes. Substitute “regular” for “annual”—depending on species, vigor etc a longer cycle may work.

4.4.7—great addition!

4.5.0--add "often internodal"

4.56—Substitute “shoot” for “stem”. Many watersprouts are tiny and temporary, which does not fit the common definition of “a woody structure that gives rise to other stems (branches). If we want to redefine “stem”, then that term should be Defined.

Add "upright" or "vertical". Watersprouts are most definitely NOT synonymous with "epicormic shoots" just because they arise from adventitious or epicormic buds. There are many other types of epicormic shoots. Some arise from ENDOcormic dormant buds. Many are useful to temporarily keep and some make good permanent branches, while few watersprouts do. There was a good analysis of this by James Scarlata here: http://www.treecareindustry.org/PDFs/TCI_Mag_NOV_SM_.pdf

Please consider changing to “New upright shoots originating from adventitious buds”

5.2.1 Extra damage shall be avoided, not should. When is it standard practice to cause extra damage without trying to avoid it? There is already an “out’ for dealing with storm damage and other emergencies. 5.3.6 says we shall avoid extra damage—let’s be consistent.

5.4.2 Change to ‘When tracing wounds and infections, …”, or make it a shall. The only time that tracing should not be limited to loose and damaged tissue is when we cut out infections beyond the area that shows signs of infection.

5.5.2-- This is a proposed addition from 2001 and there is not a clear reason for it in general arboriculture. Mandating the consideration of removing every tree that is occasionally pruned to clear a house or a road, and every hedge, would create an undue burden on the arborist. This proposed addition would also tend to defeat the whole Purpose of this Standard.
If this language has any place, it is under Utility Pruning, and there only as a should, not a shall. For general purposes, it would be more appropriate to recommend considering the retention of every tree.

5.5.7 “Heading cuts shall…” These cuts can not be wrong when the defined objective is right.

5.6 Location and size ranges shall be specified. Specifying need not always be in great detail, but it should always be done to provide for positive results.

5.6.4.1 Delete, or add to thinning and raising. All types of pruning do not fit all species. It is almost always wrong to raise a trident or Japanese maple for example. It is hard to imagine a species that cannot adapt to having branches shortened for a specified purpose.

5.6.5.2 Consideration should…Let’s think about this type of pruning just as much as the others.

5.6.5.5 Great move to add “…or reduced”!

5.7.2.3--delete "internodal"--the locations for the initial cuts can be at nodes.

5.7.4.2—substitute “shoots” for “watersprouts”

Thanks you for your work on this committee, and your time spent reviewing my comments.

 

[jefflovstrom]

I have somethig to say. I read all you guys, I have great respect for John Paul as I have been around awhile, I don't know the "treeseer", but my "Code of ethics" directs me to acknowledge him as Board cert. WOW- I would love to know as much as you do! You both have passionate arguements. The problem for me is that euc's are like weeds here and I live in the real world and in the region I live in, they are either beautiful or a liability. The best eucs I have seen or been up in ( I have been up in 225 feet ) have never been touched. I don't know if John Paul agrees, but, a topped tree is best removed. By the way , "treeseer", You never mentioned the importance of parent wood.
Jeff Lovstrom
Jealous of the knowledge.
--do i get a sticky?---

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Hey Jeff, Welcome back!! And thank you very much.

I don't know euc's, being in zone 5a, but i would say that some trees that have been topped can be managed over time.

I've done a number of crown restoration prunes and other forms of mitigation.

It is case by case and species dependant. Often times it is just management of decline until the removal is imparative.

A few times I have retopped or dropcrotched some willows or silvermaples that were so hacked that there was no other option and the client could not afford removal of the big wood. $300-400 every 2-3 years vs $1500 for the removal.

Often times they are old enough so they would never see a large tree there and wish to enjoy some shade, but need mitigation of risk.

It is imparative that you give the option of removal and inumerate the risks of the work and the need for cyclical work in the future to CYA. Some people have the client initial or sign those parts of the agreement.

 

[John464]

I think more of what needs to be done is illustrations along with the words. To write and clarify what is the best terminology in identifying and describing what course if action one should take is important, but also having illustrations depicting the correct way speaks much louder than words/text.