mikecross23
ArboristSite Guru
Too remove or not to remove?
Or maybe do something else? This 2-trunked tree looks like an obvious candidate for LIGHT reduction pruning. It looks like there are dead/declining branches at the top. A healthier tree would remain if height was reduced to the fuller canopy just below the present top. If that was done and sprawl reduced on trunk toward house, strain would be much less on the base.Originally posted by mikecross23
Too remove or not to remove?
Originally posted by Matt Follett
Mikecross23
I agree with Guy, no reason to take that down if the client wants to keep it... Light reduction and cable would be the way to go, cobra I say, keep that reaction wood building... The tree has been around this long, it's workin pretty hard to keep itself up, just give it a tender helping hand
Originally posted by Guy Meilleur
Or maybe do something else? This 2-trunked tree looks like an obvious candidate for LIGHT reduction pruning. It looks like there are dead/declining branches at the top. A healthier tree would remain if height was reduced to the fuller canopy just below the present top. If that was done and sprawl reduced on trunk toward house, strain would be much less on the base.
Cabling also seems warranted. Lots of ways to lessen risk short of removal. It looks like a valuable enough asset to both landscapes to merit the maintenance. kb what's your take?
That's a lot of hooey. I charge the same per hour climbing or whatever and I'm always overworked so no profit motive in selling pruning vs. other svcs. What is this "human arrogance" stuff? NO error in knowing what works and doing it. Murph, trees do well without people, sure, but do better with good treatment.Originally posted by murphy4trees
I do not see a good reason to prune from the limitted perspective of the picture... Can you see the dead branches at the top?
I have argued on other posts that we arborists tend to think that pruning is somehow good for trees, very much as Guy's post would suggest....It's good for any organism to shed dying tissue. That's why they do it on their own; proper pruning just anticipates that natural act. I have argued that pruning is best practiced when applied to meet the needs of humans and rarely does it promote tree health or survival.... And that our industry has been slow to recognize this perspective, primarily because of the financial loss it creates..... I don't accept the wulkowiczian premise that humans are evil and trees would be better off without us. It's folly to separate human needs from tree needs because we live together and both have to adapt to each others' needs. I'd like to see the science that supports Guy's statement "A healthier tree would remain if height was reduced to the fuller canopy just below the present top."Removing dead and dying wood in that tree would improve its health. Shortening sprawling branches would make it less likely to break, AND would free up the little tree it's suppressing. There, pruning would be done for the other tree's good.
I would agree that reduction would reduce the chances of the tree failing at the crotch, yet this would be unnecessary because a properly installed cable would bring the chances of such failure to near zero. Reduction would bring it closer to zero. To think that pruning will make this tree healthier in any other way is symptomatic of our human arrogance.... And of course the influence of the profit motive in such situations is undeniable....
Better yet to stick your head back in the sand or back up some other dark place where the light of Shigo cannot illuminate the anti-pruning darkness. Better plug your ears so you don't hear bombast like this: "As people and trees get even closer, pruning will become more important for the health of the tree, and for our safety." Meilleurian prattle? No, Shigovian sense, p. 419 ANTB .Originally posted by Mike Maas
I have to go wash my eyes out after reading that Meilleurian pro-prunning prattle.
Enter your email address to join: