ever heard of cutting the top half of a tree down?

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Any that servive that I seen end up with 10 to 50 leads,going staight up with very little thickness to the leads but keep going straight up

I wonder how badly it affects the tree if one was simply to keep pruning these sprouts every few years to keep the tree at a "safe" height. I trim a few hemlock "hedges" every few years to keep them in shape, taking a few feet out the top and shearing the sides for a uniform wall. I understand it's not the best thing for the tree but they still seem healthy and it's what the HO wants.
 
I wonder how badly it affects the tree if one was simply to keep pruning these sprouts every few years to keep the tree at a "safe" height. I trim a few hemlock "hedges" every few years to keep them in shape, taking a few feet out the top and shearing the sides for a uniform wall. I understand it's not the best thing for the tree but they still seem healthy and it's what the HO wants.

And at the same time the majority (tops a tree) and then lets it grow untill its time for its removal because they don't want to deal with it over and over failing to relize its a life time commitment to have trees in your yard.
 
And at the same time the majority (tops a tree) and then lets it grow untill its time for its removal because they don't want to deal with it over and over failing to relize its a life time commitment to have trees in your yard.

Yep ,that happens a lot here.

It doesn't bother me too much when it's done to one of the many invasive-non-native trees.
Hate to see it done to a native live,or water oak though.
 
Yep ,that happens a lot here.

It doesn't bother me too much when it's done to one of the many invasive-non-native trees.
Hate to see it done to a native live,or water oak though.

I think that's the difference. A lot of trees can handle harsh pruning but the HO needs to be informed that this will have to be treated on a regular basis or the tree will become more dangerous than it was before the initial cutting. If a 80 foot silver maple is 50 feet from your house I can't see why reducing it to a 50 foot silver maple and a strict pruning regimen would be out of the question. The danger to structures is eliminated and the HO gets to keep their tree.
 
Some trees are unaffected by topping, others are devistated.

Cape means well but this statement isn't quite correct. No tree is "unaffected" by topping. Indiscriminate internodal pruning ALWAYS harms a tree. Some just don't show it as soon as others. Whenever I am asked to do this sort of thing, as I was about 3 hours ago, I explain why this doesnt help the tree or the HO. If they insist on topping the tree I walk away as I did 2 hrs and 45 minutes ago.

We all have to choose on this sort of job whether to take the money or take a stand. I can assure you that the latter is profitable. It is amazing how many people look at you with new respect when you say "no, I will not lower my standards for money".

:cheers:
 
Cape means well but this statement isn't quite correct. No tree is "unaffected" by topping. Indiscriminate internodal pruning ALWAYS harms a tree. Some just don't show it as soon as others. Whenever I am asked to do this sort of thing, as I was about 3 hours ago, I explain why this doesnt help the tree or the HO. If they insist on topping the tree I walk away as I did 2 hrs and 45 minutes ago.

We all have to choose on this sort of job whether to take the money or take a stand. I can assure you that the latter is profitable. It is amazing how many people look at you with new respect when you say "no, I will not lower my standards for money".

:cheers:

Good for you for walking away rather than compromising your principles. :clap:
 
Was the HO a cantankerous old onion? They usualy get what they want.



toppedspruce-1.jpg


Bad pic from the 90's but they told me to do it. I brought it down to the roofline. I usually don't go round doing that all the time.
 
When the tree survives and grows in a different manner, how is anyone able to explain the "it harms the tree" principle? The cuts scar over and the energy in the tree is expended in some other area. The pines that I have topped for years now have all done just fine and actually thicken, creating as canopy above the woods floor. Nobody in their right mind just goes in and cuts a tree in half like the picture above. Like a haircut, you need to blend the remaining branches with what is left. I have done this to oaks, pines, maples and even leland cypruss, cutting the lead and pruning around the remaining top edges to blend it better. Some trees do not take well to cutting and pruning and others continue to grow. I always explain this to the HO before cutting and tell them no guarantees.
 
when it comes right down to it, it's all about the money, either I get it or someone else will.............of course this is after I explain "what's right for the tree"..........
 
man im sure fruite tree must suffer tremendously from topping. we have some 30-60 foot mango tree's here on maui. they are super sensitive to there branches being cut. i heard of a guy who topped a 50 footer and it didn't fruit for the next 10 years.
 
When the tree survives and grows in a different manner, how is anyone able to explain the "it harms the tree" principle? The cuts scar over and the energy in the tree is expended in some other area. The pines that I have topped for years now have all done just fine and actually thicken, creating as canopy above the woods floor. Nobody in their right mind just goes in and cuts a tree in half like the picture above. Like a haircut, you need to blend the remaining branches with what is left. I have done this to oaks, pines, maples and even leland cypruss, cutting the lead and pruning around the remaining top edges to blend it better. Some trees do not take well to cutting and pruning and others continue to grow. I always explain this to the HO before cutting and tell them no guarantees.

It's all about what happens to the tree internally that makes a differfence. When you top a tree, you force it to deplete its energy reserves in order to replenish the growth that it has lost. A topped tree begins to starve because it now has only a fraciton of the leaves it had previous to being topped. As a result, it cannot take in enough sunlight to produce photosynthesis which is how a tree gets its energy along with getting nutrients from the soil.

Most topped trees do put on a sudden flush of new growth after being topped and, on the outside, they can appear look healthy and vigorous. But, on the inside, the tree is getting weaker and weaker as its energy reserves get lower and lower. Over a period of years, the tree puts on new growth as fast as it can (often in the form of watersprouts) to keep from 'starving' to death.

In a healthy tree, energy created through photosynthesis is typically allocated towards two things - putting on new growth and building up defense (think of it like an imune system). If a topped tree is forced to put all of its energy towards replenishing a topped canopy, then it suddenly is left short of enough energy to put towards defense.

As a result, it may take 5, 10, even more years but, eventually some pest or disease comes along and attacks the tree and it doesn't have enough energy built up in its reserves to defend against it and it goes downhill quickly from there and ends up firewood whereas a healthy tree with sufficient energy in its defense reserves would have a much better chance at defending itself.

Think of it this way...a person with HIV or AIDS doesn't typically die from HIV or AIDS. Rather, it's pneumonia or something else that attacks the person's depleted immune system and gets the best of them whereas a person with a healthy immune system is able to fight off the attack.

If you continually stress out a tree, whether it be by topping, root cutting, improper fertilization or some other inappropriate treatment, the tree may look fine on the outside but there is a whole lot of bad stuff going on on the inside.
 
Species has a lot to do with it, age too.

Some trees evolved in an environment where there is a damage cycle that they had to adapt to. Young trees seem to adapt as it it were a browsing response; this is where pollard, espalier and cloud pruning come in. The difference is that the cultural practice is thoughtful and discriminating, where topping is indiscriminate.

Sort of like the saying where a little knowledge can be more dangerous then ignorance.
 
Hat racking.

Arborists I know generally won't do it even when the client wants it.

There are plenty of chainsaw wielding "tree services" that will do whatever the customer says. Often it's a case of you gets what you pay for in terms of tree work.
 
when it comes right down to it, it's all about the money, either I get it or someone else will.............of course this is after I explain "what's right for the tree"..........

I find this mentality towards tree work interesting considering that the same guys who are fine with making a quick buck doing something like topping would likely never ask their mechanic to save a few bucks by doing something questionable in the short run that is likely to cause severe damage to their prized work or personal truck over time.

As professionals, we're all expected to look at the big picture and to act in the best interest of our clients and not in the best interests of our own pocketbooks. Yes, we all need to make a living but no, we don't need to do it by hacking up trees when we know we shouldn't be - even if the client persists in asking us to.

Ethics...gitcha some.
 
Last edited:
If after being told that topping will not benefit their tree,and the HO still insist on having their tree hacked up,that is the HOs bad.
Their tree has absolutely no sentimental value to me.
It's not my tree,and it's not in my yard.
 
I find this mentality towards tree work interesting considering that the same guys who are fine with making a quick buck doing something like topping would likely never ask their mechanic to save a few bucks by doing something questionable in the short run that is likely to cause severe damage to their prized work or personal truck over time.
I do my own mechanic work.........

As professionals, we're all expected to look at the big picture and to act in the best interest of our clients and not in the best interests of our own pocketbooks. Yes, we all need to make a living but no, we don't need to do it by hacking up trees when we know we shouldn't be - even if the client persists in asking us to.

Ethics...gitcha some.
has nothing to do with ethics, bad ethics is hiring illegals and paying them under the table $6 and hour and working them 12 hours a day and not paying over time......

if I explain to them the down side of the topping and their mind is set on topping the tree you, I or no one else will change it and if I don't get the money someone else will, I've seen guys riding around town hat racking the hell out of trees and ads state ISA certified arborist in the yellow pages....IT'S THEIR TREE, they can do as they please.....
 
Last edited:
I do my own mechanic work.........

has nothing to do with ethics, bad ethics is hiring illegals and paying them under the table $6 and hour and working them 12 hours a day and not paying over time......

if I explain to them the down side of the topping and their mind is set on topping the tree you, I or no one else will change it and if I don't get the money someone else will, I've seen guys riding around town hat racking the hell out of trees and ads state ISA certified arborist in the yellow pages....IT'S THEIR TREE, they can do as they please.....

Ethics (as defined by me) is simply understanding the difference between right and wrong in your work practices and attempting to do no wrong. As I said before, it's about working in the best interest of the client EVEN IF the client is stubborn and stupid and doesn't want to look at the big picture.

So you, as a professional tree service, top a relatively healthy; albeit, tall tree because the homeowner insists that you do so. It grows back watersprouts which are weakly attached and become vulnerable to wind and ice damage. Further, the new growth stresses the tree and it becomes infested with insects and disease-causing pathogens. Along comes a wind and ice storm and the tree fails in various locations and ultimately falls through the neighbor's roof causing extensive damage to his home and physical injury to his family. When the bills start rolling in for property repairs and medical bills, a lawyer soon gets involved and starts asking tree experts about the tree and what caused it to fail.

Guess who's going to get his butt drug into court to defend himself for topping the tree? If you think a jury is going to be compassionate towards you, the hack arborist, vs the HO's little girl who got clobbered by the tree you topped, you're kidding yourself. They're going to look at you as the professional who should have known better than to do something that is generally understood to be wrong just because the HO offered you money to do it.

Even if you, as the defendant, win the battle in court, how sweet does that $500 bucks the HO paid you to top his tree look after you lawyer hands you a bill for $20,000 for his defense? And, before you jump on the "well, that's what insurance is for" bandwagon - are you sure your insurance will cover your expenses in a gross negligence lawsuit?

Forget the ethics part of this discussion and just think about the liability you're taking on when you do something to a tree that you know isn't going to be good for the health and longevity of it. It's just not worth the liability hanging over your head IMO.
 
Last edited:
Ethics (as defined by me) is simply understanding the difference between right and wrong in your work practices and attempting to do no wrong. As I said before, it's about working in the best interest of the client EVEN IF the client is stubborn and stupid and doesn't want to look at the big picture.

So you, as a professional tree service, top a relatively healthy; albeit, tall tree because the homeowner insists that you do so. It grows back watersprouts which are weakly attached and become vulnerable to wind and ice damage. Further, the new growth stresses the tree and it becomes infested with insects and disease-causing pathogens. Along comes a wind and ice storm and the tree fails in various locations and ultimately falls through the neighbor's roof causing extensive damage to his home and physical injury to his family. When the bills start rolling in for property repairs and medical bills, a lawyer soon gets involved and starts asking tree experts about the tree and what caused it to fail.

Guess who's going to get his butt drug into court to defend himself for topping the tree? If you think a jury is going to be compassionate towards you, the hack arborist, vs the HO's little girl who got clobbered by the tree you topped, you're kidding yourself. They're going to look at you as the professional who should have known better than to do something that is generally understood to be wrong just because the HO offered you money to do it.

Even if you, as the defendant, win the battle in court, how sweet does that $500 bucks the HO paid you to top his tree look after you lawyer hands you a bill for $20,000 for his defense? And, before you jump on the "well, that's what insurance is for" bandwagon - are you sure your insurance will cover your expenses in a gross negligence lawsuit?

Forget the ethics part of this discussion and just think about the liability you're taking on when you do something to a tree that you know isn't going to be good for the health and longevity of it. It's just not worth the liability hanging over your head IMO.
:deadhorse::deadhorse: show me written rules or statues from my state that state I would be negligent in topping the tree...

I don't try to sell topping nor do I advertise it but I will do it.....
 

Latest posts

Back
Top