any ideas for this case, folks?

[oldugly]

Here's the deal
I have a customer that wants to try to save this tree. I am attempting to post pictures to go along with this, but because I am no computer genius I will attempt the old manual description first.
The tree is an old hollow oak, about twenty four inches dbh. the hollow is about eighteen to twenty inches. The top of the tree is broken off, and one major limb protrudes from the point of the break. One other limb exists on the tree about halfway between this point and the ground, parallel with the upper limb. From this he has swings hung, and a "play" area for his and visiting kids. I do not feel there is any way to stop the already progressive decay in the tree, or to make the tree safe, but I am open for ideas. I have talked to him about lightening the upper branch, which may help some, but personally I feel I only buying him a short time.
Any ideas, feel free. Also for the Minnesota guys, the customer said he would pay for a second consultation. If interested please e-mail me.

 

[okietreedude1]

If I were you, I'd make it clear IN WRITING this tree is a hazard and have the guy sign and receive a copy of it. this would help eliminate you from legal liability in case of injury.

It sounded like the tree only has two limbs, is this right? If so, I think it should go before it kills someone.

 

[NeTree]

Sounds about right (sight unseen).

 

[oldugly]

trying one more time to attach this picture

 

[oldugly]

again I try to post this thing....one last time.
I appreciate the input so far, and if I ever figure out how to post a photo of this thing, you could see clearly what I am talking about.

 

[NeTree]

Yep. I'd eighty-six that thing before it fails... at the worst possible moment. Way-way-way too much risk for very little benefit.

 

[ramanujan]

I'd say a 80% height reduction could tame that beast... I wouldn't feel comfortable doing anything less than that tho.

 

[okietreedude1]

Now that Ive seen the pic, removal would be my ONLY advise. Ive seen trees with less obvious wounds fail.

GET THAT THING OUTTA THERE!

 

[geofore]

oak damage

Best is to lose the tree than one of the kids. Not safe, would you let your kids play under it? Not I! An accident waiting to happen.

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Trees can be very tough, but no lil'lives worth wasting.

I'd say that barring removal; making sure that it was well rooted, opposite stump side from lean was very sound-as most leveraged; and remove part of the top. Remove some weight from the top, paying attention to how each piece you think about taking affects the leveraged pull. ie. Focusing on taking weight that leans away from stump, and reserving top weight that leans back towards. Could also support back against lean from top of spar? Baby/ lightest swinger would be farthest out, but less leverage if last 2 swings moved to lower leveraged position, closer to trunk.

It is kinda a roullette deal, but i guess any is. This just more compromised, and open to being more so, catching water and what other activity is incumbent. At one time this might have carried tons more of leveraged weight.

Barring removal, i would make a few of these minimal changes to affect pulls on spar, keeping eyes open for more clues at each stage

 

[NeTree]

or something like that...

 

[Greg]

That thing just needs a few cuts at the base and it will be fine (for firewood!). Swing sets really are't that expensive, sell him on a new tree and spraying the chips in the area where he can install a new playground.
-anything short of removal would be way too risky from a liability perspective.
Greg

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Greg

-anything short of removal would be way too risky from a liability perspective.
Greg

The swings should move, I definitely agree with that. Remove the most valuable target, remove most of the hazard.
After that, is it an acceptable risk to have it in the yard? No way to know until the attachment of the top is inspected. TreeSpyder was on the right track if he was talking about reducing the length and load of that top. It sprawls, and if end weight was cut back to upright laterals it could photsynthate plenty while having much less strain on that old defect.

If you're careful to state that risk remains when you're done and measure and document the defect (cameras are easy to take in trees; light enough for my old bones not to notice) you're ok. Getting owner to sign is a good plus, more important to get him to agree to annual inspection/mtc. which can include fert, bug&disease control, look at rest of yard, etc. December -January is a great time for inspections, when the leaves are off and the phone's not ringing.

Most of the replyers so far:alien: are way too quick to whack, imo--that tree may well be standing longer than all of you if it gets some basic, thoughtful care.

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Would there be a point where it was hollow to close to ground, that a drain hole would be wise to keep water from welling up inside, providing damp atmosphere etc. Guess that might also help to keep from winter freezing. But also in a tropical climate so much alive and accelerated/incubatory of many more organisms for longer periods/ unstopping periods?

Or something like that..........
86 is a restaurantese for tossed out or run out products; just gone.
99 is restrauntese for itemized code, for complimentary/ gift food.


Thus, Mel Brooks used the 2 nos. woven into fhe fabric of telling us to 'Get Smart' against Kaos......

:alien:

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Don't install drains. Fill hollow trees with water. Decay micro organisms are aerobic and won't live if the wood is saturated.

Tom

 

[oldugly]

It seems to be hollow all the way down, at least by pounding on the tree it sounds like it. There are vertical splits also noticeable on the trunk, and on the opposite side of the tree from the photograph, another hole underneath the top limb. Looks like another branch has broken off, and rotted into the trunk. The tree will not hold water. Does anyone recommend a cavity filler, to slow the decay, or would that only add to it, not allowing the hollow to "breathe"?
My personal experience is that redoak is a strong, yet brittle tree, (which is what scares me the most about this) that will show no sign of failure until the branch is laying on the ground, or on top of some poor kid.
My first sight of the tree I recommended removal, however the customer wanted another opinion. I also recommended lightening the top branch, but again I would not give him a thumbs up on the safety issue. As you can see from the picture there is no way to cable or support the main limbs, and a cavity fill seems impractical. The owner just had the house built, and the landscapers actually designed the play area around that tree, so the customer is pretty set on saving it.
Tom, the offer stands that the customer will pay for a second consultant to look at it and make recommendations, if you are interested. e-mail me if you are interested.

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Thanx Tom, always heard ya shouldn't not positive aspect of water.

i think vertical splits puts tree in higher risk category, stuctrally, dead, invasions etc.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by oldugly
There are vertical splits also noticeable on the trunk, and on the opposite side of the tree from the photograph, another hole underneath the top limb.
Multiple defects, uh oh. How big are the cracks, how wide is the hole? SOP for a professional hazard eval is an aerial inspection; you should be paid for the time it takes to check every defect and assess risk. How else can you know what needs to be done?

Foam to fill cavity will not affect decay so much as it may lessen the twisting that makes the cracks. I only know this from reading Mattheck and others and seeing a few that had been filled and it seemed to work; never did it myself.

Red oak is different than the basswood in the last hollow tree thread, riskier for sure. TD or some other independent assessment, followed by shooting the idiot landscape architect that built around that thing without checking it first.

The picture though does show some strong uprights that are natural targets for reducing to, if the assessment suggests mitigating the risk is worthwhile.

 

[oldugly]

followed by shooting the idiot landscape architect that built around that thing witho

I couldn't agree more. It's not my kids playing under that tree, so I will leave the execution to the customer.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

We cannot make descisions or the client, just make recomendations.

Alll communications you have should state that the tree should be removed to eliminate the hte high risk of failure.

CYA every step of the way.