exploderator
New Member
Hi all, great forum and great ethics. This is my first post here, with a question for which I've found no clear answers elsewhere. Thanks in advance for any insights you all might have. I am trying to find out if spur climbing will seriously harm my Douglas Fir trees (mostly old with thick bark). I think that I aim to remove their lower branches, both to reduce the overall wind loading that is blowing some of them down, and to reduce the chance of huge lower branches falling on my buildings. I want to keep my trees, and this seems like a good solution. A very few hazard trees might be removed, if truly necessary.
Climbing with spurs seems like the easiest way up for bottom-up limbing (often well over 50'). Climbing with spurs is sadly the unquestioned default norm in this small backwards town, with too many old loggers and too few climbers; it's the only technique available for hire around here. But how dangerous is this damage to my thick bark fir trees? I appreciate how generally bad it is for most trees, that spurs should be seen only as an expedient for tree removal. But are thick barked fir trees a possible exception? And might healthy fir trees also tend to cope with spur damage better than most other species, given that they seem to heal very quickly and very well, with few pests or diseases prevalent in this area? Can I get away with it, or should I?
That's the seed of the question. Now I'll give the long version, and hope that it's a worthy and enjoyable read for you:
I'm in Powell River, south coast of BC, Canada, where Douglas Firs and Hemlocks dominate my area. My acre (lived here all my life) is about 50% covered with lovely firs, many quite large (a few up to 4' diameter near the ground). I love these trees, and I am sad that most people clear their land by default, with seemingly no second thought or question. I have long been saddened that it takes only one of us silly monkeys, armed with just one silly short term whim, and a chainsaw, to remove an ancient voiceless neighbor from this world forever. So many decisions that affect the long term, made just now for such brief reasons. I would not clear my forest unless I was starving and needed the sunlight to grow food for the foreseeable future. But enough philosophy... suffice it to say that I love these trees that I have grown up with, and I wish we would all think at least twice, long and hard, about ending the long lives of trees.
So, as the decades pass, my trees have grown very large, and all my human neighbors have removed ALL of their large trees. Most importantly, this adjacent clearing includes a 100 acre clearcut, the forest I grew up in, which used to shelter my hillside land from the harsh wind storms that sometimes blow chaotic in this mountainous area. My trees now face the gusting gales alone on my lonely remaining forested acre.
Three years back, one fell on my neighbor's house, doing about $35000 in damage. Luckily it was covered by their insurance, and the rebuild was a good improvement to a rotten old deck and shed. Even more luckily, it missed my neighbor herself, by a few golden feet. Shortly thereafter, she had all her large trees cut down, at great expense to their life and beauty, and to her pocketbook. She would feel less fear if my trees were gone too (at least those within reach of her house). But I will not, can not oblige.
My trees are well rooted in well drained, well cemented gravely soil. They seem healthy, with no obvious diseases or past injuries. They grew up facing strong gales from the SW, and have taught me much about strength. But they now also face gales from due east (I miss the forest that once stood next door). These east winds are a new trick for them, and this seems to account for the tree that fell on my neighbor's house. I suspect that it just hadn't grown sufficient roots to brace in that direction, because it was blown out of the ground when it went over.
Speaking with a local "tree service" guy (who seemed fairly with it for this hick town), I confirmed that good old topping is good old retarded, and that removing branches would most likely help these trees by reducing their sail area. My preference would be to start removing branches from the bottom and work up, leaving roughly the top 1/3 to 1/4 of the tree untouched (actually most of the vibrant working canopy). I note that in fully forested areas, most of the trees have shed their lower branches (which received little light as the forest grew up), but that some of the trees on my land have grown up with much open side exposure, and so have retained a large number of lower branches, mostly facing the light. This makes the trees somewhat lopsided, but the SW light exposure also luckily coincides with the old SW wind, so it hasn't been an issue (they are well counterweighted for the SW gales, but not the new east gales). These lower branches are also often huge (maybe 6" to 8" at the trunk, 20' long horizontal, and very dangerous when they occasionally fall). It seems that removing these lower branches might be better for the trees.
I seek comment on this strategy. Can I safely remove all these lower branches, up to the point where I leave a sensible canopy / top?
And if that is a sound strategy, might I get away with using spurs to climb these trees to do it, or would that likely cause serious harm? Spurs would be an easy practical / methodological fit with my expected task, if these trees can safely take the punishment. (and yes I see the irony here, of hurting to help)
The alternative would probably include buying / building a Big Shot to place ropes into the working heights I am after. I have most of the climbing gear (from caving), and enough good sense and skill to do this work and still be here for my kids afterwards. I also have an extremely intelligent and well qualified professional faller as a dear friend, willing consultant and capable tree safety guide, although he is not knowledgeable about keeping trees alive and healthy.
(He calls himself a "Reforestation Site Preparation Technologist and Consultant"
)
I hope I have made my questions clear. I welcome all thoughts on these matters. I have a big project on my hands, and doing it right is essential. Thank you for your time reading.
Climbing with spurs seems like the easiest way up for bottom-up limbing (often well over 50'). Climbing with spurs is sadly the unquestioned default norm in this small backwards town, with too many old loggers and too few climbers; it's the only technique available for hire around here. But how dangerous is this damage to my thick bark fir trees? I appreciate how generally bad it is for most trees, that spurs should be seen only as an expedient for tree removal. But are thick barked fir trees a possible exception? And might healthy fir trees also tend to cope with spur damage better than most other species, given that they seem to heal very quickly and very well, with few pests or diseases prevalent in this area? Can I get away with it, or should I?
That's the seed of the question. Now I'll give the long version, and hope that it's a worthy and enjoyable read for you:
I'm in Powell River, south coast of BC, Canada, where Douglas Firs and Hemlocks dominate my area. My acre (lived here all my life) is about 50% covered with lovely firs, many quite large (a few up to 4' diameter near the ground). I love these trees, and I am sad that most people clear their land by default, with seemingly no second thought or question. I have long been saddened that it takes only one of us silly monkeys, armed with just one silly short term whim, and a chainsaw, to remove an ancient voiceless neighbor from this world forever. So many decisions that affect the long term, made just now for such brief reasons. I would not clear my forest unless I was starving and needed the sunlight to grow food for the foreseeable future. But enough philosophy... suffice it to say that I love these trees that I have grown up with, and I wish we would all think at least twice, long and hard, about ending the long lives of trees.
So, as the decades pass, my trees have grown very large, and all my human neighbors have removed ALL of their large trees. Most importantly, this adjacent clearing includes a 100 acre clearcut, the forest I grew up in, which used to shelter my hillside land from the harsh wind storms that sometimes blow chaotic in this mountainous area. My trees now face the gusting gales alone on my lonely remaining forested acre.
Three years back, one fell on my neighbor's house, doing about $35000 in damage. Luckily it was covered by their insurance, and the rebuild was a good improvement to a rotten old deck and shed. Even more luckily, it missed my neighbor herself, by a few golden feet. Shortly thereafter, she had all her large trees cut down, at great expense to their life and beauty, and to her pocketbook. She would feel less fear if my trees were gone too (at least those within reach of her house). But I will not, can not oblige.
My trees are well rooted in well drained, well cemented gravely soil. They seem healthy, with no obvious diseases or past injuries. They grew up facing strong gales from the SW, and have taught me much about strength. But they now also face gales from due east (I miss the forest that once stood next door). These east winds are a new trick for them, and this seems to account for the tree that fell on my neighbor's house. I suspect that it just hadn't grown sufficient roots to brace in that direction, because it was blown out of the ground when it went over.
Speaking with a local "tree service" guy (who seemed fairly with it for this hick town), I confirmed that good old topping is good old retarded, and that removing branches would most likely help these trees by reducing their sail area. My preference would be to start removing branches from the bottom and work up, leaving roughly the top 1/3 to 1/4 of the tree untouched (actually most of the vibrant working canopy). I note that in fully forested areas, most of the trees have shed their lower branches (which received little light as the forest grew up), but that some of the trees on my land have grown up with much open side exposure, and so have retained a large number of lower branches, mostly facing the light. This makes the trees somewhat lopsided, but the SW light exposure also luckily coincides with the old SW wind, so it hasn't been an issue (they are well counterweighted for the SW gales, but not the new east gales). These lower branches are also often huge (maybe 6" to 8" at the trunk, 20' long horizontal, and very dangerous when they occasionally fall). It seems that removing these lower branches might be better for the trees.
I seek comment on this strategy. Can I safely remove all these lower branches, up to the point where I leave a sensible canopy / top?
And if that is a sound strategy, might I get away with using spurs to climb these trees to do it, or would that likely cause serious harm? Spurs would be an easy practical / methodological fit with my expected task, if these trees can safely take the punishment. (and yes I see the irony here, of hurting to help)
The alternative would probably include buying / building a Big Shot to place ropes into the working heights I am after. I have most of the climbing gear (from caving), and enough good sense and skill to do this work and still be here for my kids afterwards. I also have an extremely intelligent and well qualified professional faller as a dear friend, willing consultant and capable tree safety guide, although he is not knowledgeable about keeping trees alive and healthy.
(He calls himself a "Reforestation Site Preparation Technologist and Consultant"
)I hope I have made my questions clear. I welcome all thoughts on these matters. I have a big project on my hands, and doing it right is essential. Thank you for your time reading.
