Look at this tree....
- Thread starter teamtree
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
woodchux
Addicted to ArboristSite
What a POS.
Prune that thing right above the root flair.
Prune that thing right above the root flair.
jrparbor04
ArboristSite Operative
i like that,,,one horizontal pruning cut right at the root flare
BayouTree
ArboristSite Operative
That's crazy.
Why would a homeowner want that hazardous thing around their house? I would refuse to trim that and make them sign a copy of the proposal stating they are refusing your recommendation for removal.
Pic 2 is good at showing why not to top.
Why would a homeowner want that hazardous thing around their house? I would refuse to trim that and make them sign a copy of the proposal stating they are refusing your recommendation for removal.Pic 2 is good at showing why not to top.
polingspig
Certified Arborist
I agree with BayouTree.
It's amazing how well y'all can assess :Eye: risk on a computer screen. The back trunk looks bad, the 2 in front, maybe.
TreeCo and I restored a red maple in Richmond in that kind of condition 3 years ago. Right in front of a >$1m house. Aside from the topping wounds, the owners had just dug irrigation 12-15' from this 3-4' dbh tree. I called them last year to check and they said it still looked fine.
I'll try to check it again this fall. Expect a miracle and it may come.
Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to calculate and clearly communicate to tree owners the risk associated with their tree, and what they can do about it. All risks can be lowered (abated, mitigated, lessened), but when arboricultural options are not carefully considered and clearly communicated, the owners cannot make an informed decision. Quickly labeling :monkey: “defects” and “hazards” can lead to the needless removal of valuable trees, when more conservative actions may have been more reasonable.
If you are near Indianapolis, call Tree Machine.
TreeCo and I restored a red maple in Richmond in that kind of condition 3 years ago. Right in front of a >$1m house. Aside from the topping wounds, the owners had just dug irrigation 12-15' from this 3-4' dbh tree. I called them last year to check and they said it still looked fine.
I'll try to check it again this fall. Expect a miracle and it may come.
Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to calculate and clearly communicate to tree owners the risk associated with their tree, and what they can do about it. All risks can be lowered (abated, mitigated, lessened), but when arboricultural options are not carefully considered and clearly communicated, the owners cannot make an informed decision. Quickly labeling :monkey: “defects” and “hazards” can lead to the needless removal of valuable trees, when more conservative actions may have been more reasonable.
If you are near Indianapolis, call Tree Machine.
Last edited:
Boa07
ArboristSite Operative
You are right to point out to us all the range of options that exist for the tree owner Treeseer, and yes I have also seen even more devasted trees (90yr old Delonix regia completely split in to with half the tree on the ground over two yards) restored to something approaching their previous form and beauty (with props minor pruning and massive amounts of soil treatments!)
It would be sad if the present owner has so much love and affection for their tree to commit to the ongoing treatment of its curent condition, if they were the owners of the tree when the lopping was done! :bang:
Also being confident about accurately assessing the current risk, and recommending mitigation measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level to the owners satisfaction is certainly something that comes with experience, and sadly owners with such feelings towards their trees are thin on the ground in my experience....though of course if they are not offered the options of saving the tree they won't be able to respond.
The tree that you and Dan worked on....do you have any photos? Did you begin to try to re-establish the canopy?
It would be sad if the present owner has so much love and affection for their tree to commit to the ongoing treatment of its curent condition, if they were the owners of the tree when the lopping was done! :bang:
Also being confident about accurately assessing the current risk, and recommending mitigation measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level to the owners satisfaction is certainly something that comes with experience, and sadly owners with such feelings towards their trees are thin on the ground in my experience....though of course if they are not offered the options of saving the tree they won't be able to respond.
The tree that you and Dan worked on....do you have any photos? Did you begin to try to re-establish the canopy?
What feelings? All tree owners have to accept tree risk.
True.
No pics yet; too long ago to find them so far but I'm looking. Yes we left some sprouts, reduced some and removed some.
I dunno, Guy, I see nothing but poorly attached epicormic growth. That's and R and R, it seems to me....
O you mean Rest and Relax under its shade??
Well if all the ends look like pic 2 then I would agree it's Remove
and Replace. but we have only seen a little of the tree. silver maple i know is poorer codit than red, but we do not know until we know.Hey Roger, is all epicormic growth poorly attached?
opcorn:
Boa07
ArboristSite Operative
Clearance thats not what is being said....no one is suggesting any tree is worth more than a human life...what is being suggested is that there is more than one option for the owners even with a tree in such a terrible state, of course there's a point beyond which the tree system cannot re-establish itself in a way that is acceptable to the owner with repects to target underneath.
Should someone who owns a tree be forced to remove it because others present no other options for its long term management, when such opitons may exist? No one is suggesting absolutes here, beyond the case that there are nearly always means to mitigate the assessed risk from an individual tree that do not include removal....it just depends on how much the owner wishes to keep the tree. Some people have personal family histories tied up in trees that cross many generations (not so much here in Oz, but it does still happen here!) such owners will commit enormous amounts of capital and emotional investment into keeping their trees alive, and I know all of you can understand that. (Those were the feelings I was referring to Guy)
Everyone accepts ridiculously high levels of risk in their lives without the slightest second thought, smoking drinking eating poor foods lack of adequate exercise, driving, train travel air travel overseas travel so on and so on....yet when it comes to trees there seems to be general arbo-phobia, the actual figures and stats on serious injury and death related to urban trees is tiny in comparison to these other factors!
It is just a tree, and even allowing for the limitations of having only a few pics admitedly looks in pretty bad shape...practical arboriculture is not limited to the use of a chain saw and nothing else. It is possible that other options are appropriate (they might not be but it is possible they are!) and it is appropriate to raise them in connection with these pics as a means of getting us all to review just how and why we approach such cases.
Should someone who owns a tree be forced to remove it because others present no other options for its long term management, when such opitons may exist? No one is suggesting absolutes here, beyond the case that there are nearly always means to mitigate the assessed risk from an individual tree that do not include removal....it just depends on how much the owner wishes to keep the tree. Some people have personal family histories tied up in trees that cross many generations (not so much here in Oz, but it does still happen here!) such owners will commit enormous amounts of capital and emotional investment into keeping their trees alive, and I know all of you can understand that. (Those were the feelings I was referring to Guy)
Everyone accepts ridiculously high levels of risk in their lives without the slightest second thought, smoking drinking eating poor foods lack of adequate exercise, driving, train travel air travel overseas travel so on and so on....yet when it comes to trees there seems to be general arbo-phobia, the actual figures and stats on serious injury and death related to urban trees is tiny in comparison to these other factors!
It is just a tree, and even allowing for the limitations of having only a few pics admitedly looks in pretty bad shape...practical arboriculture is not limited to the use of a chain saw and nothing else. It is possible that other options are appropriate (they might not be but it is possible they are!) and it is appropriate to raise them in connection with these pics as a means of getting us all to review just how and why we approach such cases.
I was called to this house due to a limb getting blown out of the tree. I looked at the tree and communicated my recommendation. Since they did not want to remove the tree, I communicated the risk of leaving the tree. The tree is located on a busy one-way street right next to the sidewalk. For my protection I took the pictures as I was pruning the dead and removing some of the sucker growth to reduce the weight on each section. I also did some crown reduction. I am going to send them a certified letter saying I recommended the tree be removed. The base of the tree has a 72" DBH but the tree is probably less than 35' tall. It is over 100 years old and I would guess it has been topped 30 times. I removed a similar tree about 4 years ago right next to this one. I could stand inside the trunk of the tree. The homeowner has had about 3 trees fail due to storms and two other trees that have died in the last 4 years.
I just feel that the tree is more of a risk to pedestrians and car traffic. Odds are the tree will fail and not damage or hurt anyone but I am not willing to take that risk.
What do you guys think? Send the letter and forget it? What else can I do to cover my behind?
I just feel that the tree is more of a risk to pedestrians and car traffic. Odds are the tree will fail and not damage or hurt anyone but I am not willing to take that risk.
What do you guys think? Send the letter and forget it? What else can I do to cover my behind?
Boa07
ArboristSite Operative
All any of us can do as qualified professionals is provide advice and recommendations to the tree owners. You have done that, so long as your methodology for the risk assessment will stand up to legal examination I don't think you will have anything to worry about.
What I personally would have recommended is besides the point, you were there on site I wasn't, if you have a documented record of your assessment and include that in your written recommendation, or letter of advice then I personally think you are covered.
(On a slightly different angle you might want to consider what other management options would be open to you hypothetically, if you had such a damaged, declining tree that you wanted to keep in your own property..certainly removing the dead and decayed parts with targets, selective reduction of healthy epicormics with a veiw to some sort of canopy restoration maybe soil treatments?)
What I personally would have recommended is besides the point, you were there on site I wasn't, if you have a documented record of your assessment and include that in your written recommendation, or letter of advice then I personally think you are covered.
(On a slightly different angle you might want to consider what other management options would be open to you hypothetically, if you had such a damaged, declining tree that you wanted to keep in your own property..certainly removing the dead and decayed parts with targets, selective reduction of healthy epicormics with a veiw to some sort of canopy restoration maybe soil treatments?)
pbtree
Addicted to ArboristSite
What he said...
Yes I'm a big believer in certified letters. Only cost $2. If you think the tree is a high risk to the public, send a copy to the town attorney. If you are claiming it's a critical risk, better document it in more detail than you have here.
If the tree owners have had the trees topped all those times and seen them fail and still deny the reality of the hazard they have created, then they just need a wakeup call.
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
I beleive the proper term for that is a basal prune
If they do not want to pay for a stumpgrind, then call it a coppice.
