Arborists, advise me on what to do with this Flowering Dogwood Tree. (lots of pix)

[treeclimber101]

No idea what this means, Dave. All selected or hybridized or grafted trees are "engineered" to some extent.Because arborists' job is to extend the useful life of trees, and it is the owner who posted and his interests are the same.
there are no flowers in the word "reduction"--read ansi and the bmp's. Making branches shorter can be very good tree care--read Shigo ANTB p 458, NTBD p 114.

O and re ants, yes carpenter ants cut into living wood. Sinclair/Lyon is not bs. The Shigo quotes are not specifically referenced and do not seem to be talking about carpenter ants but other ants.

thanl you i was told that i was a joke for originally posting that .

 

[treevet]

No idea what this means, Dave. All selected or hybridized or grafted trees are "engineered" to some extent.Because arborists' job is to extend the useful life of trees, and it is the owner who posted and his interests are the same.
there are no flowers in the word "reduction"--read ansi and the bmp's. Making branches shorter can be very good tree care--read Shigo ANTB p 458, NTBD p 114.

O and re ants, yes carpenter ants cut into living wood. Sinclair/Lyon is not bs. The Shigo quotes are not specifically referenced and do not seem to be talking about carpenter ants but other ants.

It is common knowledge that you are inclined to advise extending a tree "BEYOND its useful life" on all 4 forums. I did not suggest removing this tree, but rather just let it run the course of its meager 25 year existence.

You answered your own question re "an engineered tree" (having no idea what I meant). This tree was cultivated to have a large shiny canopy with small fruit and in the process the final product was a tree too weak to support the load. Big disappointment to towns all over the country. My point re the engineered tree was not that other trees are engineered but rather that this engineering failed. Many towns ( and HO's) thought like you and after large sections tore off, the natural thing was to lighten the load (yeah I said it TOP the tree). This made for an extremely ugly tree in the dormant season.

This also pushed growth even faster than the already high growth rate and what did they have but a new huge canopy sitting on top of a compromised beam/stem. Bam, another and the final failure.

I stand by my quote on ants Guy, and could give quotes or multiples as I have all Shigo books and Sinclair as well, but that has never made a difference before. Ants are an indicator of decay, the primary problem when you see them or evidence of them. They may do some inconsequential damage beyond the mining of their homes I suppose.

 

[treeclimber101]

It is common knowledge that you are inclined to advise extending a tree "BEYOND its useful life" on all 4 forums. I did not suggest removing this tree, but rather just let it run the course of its meager 25 year existence.

You answered your own question re "an engineered tree" (having no idea what I meant). This tree was cultivated to have a large shiny canopy with small fruit and in the process the final product was a tree too weak to support the load. Big disappointment to towns all over the country. My point re the engineered tree was not that other trees are engineered but rather that this engineering failed. Many towns ( and HO's) thought like you and after large sections tore off, the natural thing was to lighten the load (yeah I said it TOP the tree). This made for an extremely ugly tree in the dormant season.

This also pushed growth even faster than the already high growth rate and what did they have but a new huge canopy sitting on top of a compromised beam/stem. Bam, another and the final failure.

I stand by my quote on ants Guy, and could give quotes or multiples as I have all Shigo books and Sinclair as well, but that has never made a difference before. Ants are an indicator of decay, the primary problem when you see them or evidence of them. They may do some inconsequential damage beyond the mining of their homes I suppose.

nooffense i think we all have differing opinions on alot of things but that is what this site is all about thank you i'm a fan of your words

 

[treevet]

nooffense i think we all have differing opinions on alot of things but that is what this site is all about thank you i'm a fan of your words

thanks treeclimber, just giving mine. I have plenty of respect for Treeseer but we see things differently at times. We see many things the same too. This is such a young and developing profession and little is black and white.

This opens the way for the ANSI's and the BMP's but they are in developmental stages as well. Thorough scientific research and accurate unbiased reporting are the answers of course.

 

[treeseer]

It is common knowledge that you are inclined to advise extending a tree "BEYOND its useful life" on all 4 forums. I did not suggest removing this tree, but rather just let it run the course of its meager 25 year existence.

Your guesstimate of 25 yrs useful life is based on what? Judgments are easy to make but hard to back up. I've seen beautifully structured Bradfords live much longer; it's all in the management. It's the owner's call. Owner wants to keep tree around, our job is to list management options.

"Let it Be" is always an option but seldom the best. Every urban tree has a target so mitigation of risk of failure is often a good idea.

You answered your own question re "an engineered tree" (having no idea what I meant). This tree was cultivated to have a large shiny canopy with small fruit and in the process the final product was a tree too weak to support the load. Big disappointment to towns all over the country. My point re the engineered tree was not that other trees are engineered but rather that this engineering failed.

Well sorry for my confusion i had noway of knowing.

Many towns ( and HO's) thought like you and after large sections tore off, the natural thing was to lighten the load (yeah I said it TOP the tree). This made for an extremely ugly tree in the dormant season.

Well it was already pretty ugly after the tearout failure but i know what you mean; they are prettier with less severe pruning. and that first pic with the red lines yes that would be a hack job no doubt.

I stand by my quote on ants Guy, and could give quotes or multiples as I have all Shigo books and Sinclair as well, but that has never made a difference before. Ants are an indicator of decay, the primary problem when you see them or evidence of them. They may do some inconsequential damage beyond the mining of their homes I suppose.

I agree I have seen mining into live wood but never to a consequential degree. Repeat, I agree.

 

[rngrchad]

Wow, this thread has been loaded with an extreme amount of technicalities. This tree is not in a city setting. It is in a private front yard. I thought maybe posting the pictures would give me some determination on what needs to be done. Tomtrees gave me a straight forward answer to remove it. I appreciate that. A few others gave some decent advice, and I realize that without anyone being able to look at it up close and personal, it is a hard thing to make a judgement call on what needs to be done. Had I known that these trees were terribly engineered and should not be planted I would have done something else, but my parents planted it long before I was even a thought on their mind.

Here is what I gather from the information I have collected throughout this thread: this Pear Tree, is a poorly engineered tree to begin with. Add to that a couple windstorms that destroyed 1/3 of the top causing major structural damage to the trunk area, and the lack of care given to it by myself; leads me to believe that the only option other than cutting it down is to "top" out some of the limbs to reduce the strain on the trunk. However, hacking this tree like where I had placed the red marks, is going to leave my parents with an ugly tree during it's dormant seasons. Out of everyone's posts, Treeclimber101, treeseer, and Rickytree seemed to be the only fellows who thought it was worth a shot to "save" this tree or at least gave me an idea on how they would try. The consensus from the rest of you didn't say anything along the lines of how to "save" this tree, so I assume you don't feel it is a good thing to do so. If these Pear Tree's lifespans are only 25 or so years then this tree is right at the end of it's "useful" lifespan as you say.

Thanks for the replies. I have taken them all into consideration and will act accordingly.
-Chad

 

[treevet]

-read Shigo ANTB p 458, NTBD p 114.

Did you spring for the Shigo set Guy?

I have had mine since they were published and have an original copy of the ANTB with a thank you from him written in it for buying a first copy.

Not trying to one up but think it is great you got this stuff.

 

[treevet]

Every urban tree has a target so

PS

 

[M.D. Vaden]

check you out with the big brain :greenchainsaw:

Yeah ...

It was a pretty quick call on the genus.

Please excuse me - but I couldn't resist. Your reply reminded me of this show episode.

Just kidding Treeman82 !!

Could you imagine if the average arborist really looked like that ?

Walking in a mall, we could spot each other at a 100 yards away.

 

[Ekka]

PS

LOL, every urban tree has a target .... that is funny. The man needs :help:

I once read something another fanatic wrote that went like this (emphasis on the bold part) ....

My advice ...for a Eucalypt...get them (the tree removalist) back to remove it properly... ie stump grinding.
Then, if its appropriate to replant...start over with a whole new a healthy replacement specimen.

The type of growth described emanates from lignotubers in the base AND is VERY weakly attached. It is really the last ditch effort of the tree to produce flower & seed ...and ensure the continuation of the species.
Resprouting from lignotubers is also common in those areas of Aust. where bushfire has ravaged trees. If there is no associated risk with these trees....then they are generally left alone to do-what trees do (National Parks & Local Councils monitor post-bushfire trees that are near camping areas, parking area and walking trails..etc...or will contract out this type of appraisal work out).

There is no place for (Eucalypt) specimens like this in our urban environment....so dont persevere with it.

Funny that, extremities of opinions from those who place value on fact not emotion. :monkey:

 

[treeseer]

Did you spring for the Shigo set Guy? I have had mine since they were published and have an original copy of the ANTB with a thank you from him written in it for buying a first copy. Not trying to one up but think it is great you got this stuff.

Dunno what set or stuff you mean; bought the books in the late 1980's.

Target = people or property. Unlike rural areas--the bush--, urban areas generally have people and property around all of the trees at least some of the time. Therefore, all urban trees have targets.

The codom tearout wound looks bad, Here's one pruning scheme:

 

[rngrchad]

The codom tearout wound looks bad, Here's one pruning scheme:

Yes the tearout is really nasty. Appreciate the pruning tips.
-Chad

 

[treevet]

urban areas generally have people and property around all of the trees at least some of the time. Therefore, all urban trees have targets.

Piffle

 

[treevet]

Piffle

At the request of Mr. Meilleur's pm I will expound. Piffle....nonsensical..."every urban tree has a target"....IMO there must be a corresponding tree with a defect threatening the target for the target to exist. Not every tree is that tree.

Is a man standing in the middle of an unused baseball field a target? Plant a small healthy well structured tree next to him. Does he then become a target? (an exaggeration)

 

[Ekka]

I think he understands Pop E Cock better. :hmm3grin2orange:

 

[treeseer]

IMO there must be a corresponding tree with a defect threatening the target for the target to exist.

Dave, I think you mean that there must be a defective tree near a target for a HAZARD to exist. From page 1 of the Guide: "the urban environment places trees in proximity to a variety of targets, requiring a more systematic approach..."

Targets--people and property--exist independent of trees. This affects the choices re chad's pear tree--if we simply leave it alone to fail without mitigating the risk involved, we may be more liable for the effects of that failure than if we took or at least described some positive action, i.e. shortening sprawling branches.

But postponing the failure alone is a good reason to act on this, as chad seems about to do. Send us your after pics!

I bulk purchased so I have a new copy of the Guide http://secure.isa-arbor.com/webstor...ation-of-Hazard-Trees-in-Urban-Areas-P23.aspx in the wrapper, $30, if anyone wants one. It shows how to assess tree risk, and how to use this form (downloaded free from the ISA website) http://www.isa-arbor.com/publications/resources/TreeHazardForm.pdf

:notrolls2: