pruning practices

[Tom Dunlap]

Mike and I are working on the same crew but in different states. Pruning less is better for the tree. Besides, I can charge just as much, cut less and have fewer chips to haul to the nursery. All of that and I KNOW the trees are healthier.

I'd like to see that same ash about ten years from now. I'll bet it has self-pruned/elevated up to about the main split. In the intermining years the brances will have provided bulk to the trunk and food to the tree. They don't "starve out and die a death of protracted agony" In fact, as the limbs die, the tree will actually move the extra stored starches out of the limbs and reallocate it before the limb dies completely. Isn't that incredible! The tree can manage it's own affairs without using saws.

There are times when lower limbs need to be removed. Hazards and physical obstructions are about the only generallized reasons for removal. After that, the only reason is to satisfy humans.

Next time you have the opportunity take a look at native trees that have grown in the open. How many lower branches are left?

This topic has gone through several arcs on the ISA forum as well as Doug Mellor's site. Taking the time to search those site's archives should open your mind to some more options. You would be better served searching than posting here for a while.

Tom

 

[Stumper]

Tom, I was teasing Mike about the "death of protracted agony". I understand that trees are marvelous creations that can take care of their own development quite well, naturally. Mike and I are fussing about this because I am convinced that "satisfying humans" is a VALID reason to prune trees. Not all pruning that isn't expressly for the benefit of the tree is butchery.(Granted, there is a point when it becomes so.) Both you guys are very knowledgable (more so than I in many areas), however you both tend to come across arrogantly at times. I will look at the sites you mentioned-you've given me lots of good links in the past, However, telling me that I need to go study before posting anymore is inappropriate. The disagreement betwen Mike and myself( and apparently you) is not based on my lack of understanding regarding tree biology,rather upon a seeming disagreement about ethics and the morality of pruning trees to "satisfy humans".

:angel:

 

[Stumper]

Mike, If it were in my yard I would prune up to the top of the erased area.

 

[Stumper]

Actually I posted the wrong pic first I might only go this high-depends on appearence and some dimensional factors that I have trouble gauging from a single photo.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Stumper, I would hope you would think of it as passion rather than arrogance.

In your computer trimming of my tree, you have, again, proven the point I'm trying to make. With no other information about the given tree and it's new location, you feel it needs at least some crown raising.
Had I first shown you a picture of the tree raised to the point you showed, I am almost certain that you would have recommended raising it more. After all, everyone has seen tree nurseries, and they never have any lower limbs.
If you did raise the tree to the height you showed, grass would certainly grow under it. That grass would need to be mowed, the result of which is soil compaction and repeated trunk injury, both often fatal, we have all seen it a million times.
Perhaps you are one of a small percentage who will put a little bark ring to prevent this. Now it looks dumb, so you'll need to do some planting to replace that missing foliage. You will cut off part of the tree's food supply, in order to plant aggressive competitive plants to take away some more of the trees food.
The cycle begins. A downward cycle of removing lower foliage from the tree to improve the plants below. The tree suffers for the grass, hostas, and spireas.
Had you left it alone there would be no need to begin this downward cycle.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Mike said it for me again.

The point about reading the other sites isn't that the gang here doesn't know enough. There are some subtle points of philosophy that are covered in the threads on the other sites. More of a feeling than hard knowledge. There are other minds that have shared their thoughts for the rest of us to ponder.

One time Bob Wulcowicz said, "There is more damage done to trees by well intentioned pruners pruning out lower and inner limbs than by topping trees." That one made me think for a while. After looking around at all of the boulevard trees that have been skinned out by monkeys working according to poor standards, I have to agree.

If you're going to make a sarcastic statement in a post would you consider making use of an emoticon? Unless there's some way of knowing that what is written isn't just a statement, I take it at face value.

Tom

 

[TREETX]

Interesting thread evolution.

I think some hugs and apologies are in order. Blasting murph like that based offa one post. Why not try to make sure ya'll are on the same/different page first?

That is an interesting pic of a tree with limbs down low. Tree don't do that here. One, it has a single main leader. 2, the lower limbs don't run. On oaks here, lower lims can run 2x the height of the tree.

People should plant the right tree in the right place. Grass should be an accent, not a center piece. Lots of things I would like to see but unfortunately I work with trees that grow in the real world. They do not grow in Ed Gilman's wonderful book or on the ISA literature. They are growing too close to drives, streets, walkways, structures, and where people live/play.

Part of what makes trees aesthetically and emotionally soothing are the activities that go on underneath them. Picnics, swings in the shade, fitered light across a backyard BBQ. If a tree has limbs to the ground spreading over the yard, activities are severely limited.

Not every tree has to be an old field tree some can be made to resemble forest trees. Who better than arborists to imitate natural forest pruning?? Better than a homeowner with a powerpruner.

No blanket presciptions - ever.

I could not possibly explain my views in an online forum so spare yer selves from judging me in an online forum. Be a little more open. This is a forum to hear and express views, not a competition of who is the number one Cyberarborista. The cattiness really turns a lot of people away.

Pruning practices will never change/evolve if all variables/results are not explored - keep it up.

Nate

 

[Stumper]

Tom, Okay, my apologies-I should have used an emoticon. ( I just went back and looked-I did! Gimme a break :^))

Mike, The new location you proposed is MY YARD! I know something about my yard and would definitely work the tree up to the point I like. I do NOT automatically raise everything. I do want my deciduous trees off the ground. Yes I walk under them and sit under them. As Tom pointed out previously, the tree will shed those limbs eventually(more than I propose taking off in fact). I will nudge the tree toward a more mature appearance earlier. I LIKE that. You stuck it in MY YARD making it MY TREE. We have adifferent view on what is ethical. FINE!

 

[TREETX]

It is an art and a science.

Hard at times to see the line between the 2

 

[Stumper]

Nice posts TREETX. I agree we blend art and science. Manipulating a tree's growth to enhance the way it serves its owner seems very ethical to me. The logical extension of what Mike is saying is to leave everythuing natural and stop all pruning. The extension of my position is to do whatever the owner wants without regard to the consequences. I don't think any of us advocate either extreme. Where we draw the line is "The Great Debate". Ultimately we all make up our own minds.

 

[murphy4trees]

I Am glad to see so much activity on this thread and would have replied earlier if we hadn't worked through the weekend..
I Am thankful to Mike and Tom for their input and believe my thinking on elevating trees has improved.. We pruned a 100' red oak yesterday and the customer originally wanted to have the three lowest limbs over the house removed... I was going to do it.... until I read up ... and thought about what I would do if it were my tree..
So I called the customer and explained my change of heart to him and actually editted and printed him out 9 pages from the earlier thread Mike posted a link to...
So while Big Jon, from tree buzz who did the climbing, was working the top and back of the tree, the customer read and afterwards I lobbied hard to save the limbs.. I let the customer make the decision... he took our advice, which was to remove only the smallest of the three, as it was poorly attached and had some decay.
Here is a before pic of tree.
So I agree that elevating is too often practiced as a knee jerk reaction....... and many things have come up for me as a result of the posts here.... more on that later.
God Bless All,
Daniel

 

[Stumper]

Do you have an after pic Daniel? Looks like an easy tree to prune for clearance using only tip work(definitely preferable). Is the pruning in the left background some of your work?

 

[CityUF]

So, the question remains... who do we work for?

This got kind of long... I'm preaching

Yes, we work for the customer
Yes, we should do what the customer wants
Yes, we need things like clearance and safety( I have to worry about stop signs, etc...)

Yes, we have people who are afraid of trees
Yes, we have stupid people who plant trees two feet from their
house or build a house next to trees
Yes, some will cut whatever and however its asked for
Yes, some won't

Should we try to teach them?... Yes... But you can't change everyones mind
Should we tell them no?... Yes... There has to be something to let them know you are serious when you say its bad

I work for a city ( I make recommendations for homeowners and do all the trimming on City Trees) so I have lots of people who all think they know how and they tell me what to do. I have to explain myself and stick to it... no matter what they say...
It started out bad but now they ask and accept my recommendation or don't.
I try to educate and have been yelled at, thrown off property, told I know nothing, etc, etc... But I have also stopped many trees from being topped, removed, or tipped because many people are looking for a reason to not accept what the guy with a chainsaw and a truck says is best.
I'm the only certified arborist in the county so educating these people is very tough. I have to convince them that the way they have been doing it for 50 years is wrong... that the power company doesn't trim trees... they obtain line clearance... and that nursery tree trimming and hedge trimming practices do not work on mature trees

We say we are professionals then we have to act like it.
A previous reply said no one wouldn't accept painting over rust So why do people acccept poor pruning? Because they don't know the long term problems it causes.

I also understand the business side... Who wants to lose all their work to some guy who does his job poorly? Who wants to lose any work? When talking with the customer tell them right from the start that you care about the trees health and if they want shoddy work they can go to someone who only wants their money. Don't get into specifics unless they ask... what homeowner cares or understands about branch collars?
Do mechanics explain internal combustion or just quote a price?
Most homeowners want safe, pretty, and easy. I tell people I would rather remove a tree then top it. That stops a lot of people or at least makes them think.

If you don't want to tell them no... put it in writing that what you are doing is not recommended by any professional group and it may affect future claims against their homeowners insurance when the tree fails and destroys something.
The fear factor is why many people top trees( thats the main reason in my town)... why not use fear to to the trees advantage?

We can't say that certain forms of trimming are bad ( raising ) because that same reasoning can be applied to everything we do to trees. Only mother nature does it naturally but humans have changed the forest environment. We have encroached on forest land and created the 'Urban Forest' where trees face entirely new problems. We, as arborists, must constantly learn and educate to be the best we can.
I know this covers a lot but we can't work thinking that only one way is right... we just have to agree on what is wrong

Some of us take care of trees because we want to AND we make money doing it

 

[trees4life]

CityUF

Well said!

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

To make my final post on this subject for a while...

Mike admits to doing it sometimes, finaly.

Mike keeps up the hyperboly that we want to raise every tree we see, and gut them too.

Seems to me we are realy all arguing the same thing then; having trees with low limbs in a landscape is a good thing, but not always possible.

With proper management practices we can maintain a healthy tree for the client for years to come. The key is to change the view of pruning trees to managing trees and make the customer a long term client.

I also think it is a good thing that Mike has found an employer with whom he is is in such good phylisophical agreement. BTW, his boss seems to take him to all the nearby conentions too

 

[murphy4trees]

The pic is of a small dogwood tree in my front yard.. We just bought the house in May. I was thinking of removing the lower branches so the lawn guys could cut the grass more easily... and after reading MM's posts, on this and the other thread he posted a link to, it's a no-brainer.... the branches stay.. cut the girdling roots and mulch out further.... definately makes sense.

So again I Am grateful to MM and Tom D. for sharing their perspectives. That said.. I request that we all work towards findind a way to share our perspectives in a civil and coimpassionate way... MM referred to himself (his posts) as passionate.. to the extent that is true.... great. Mike... I think your original reply on elevating was unnecessay and damaging to this site and those on it. Would you call a husband who slaps around his wife and kids passionate?? or Abusive? How about Hitler... was he passionate??? or a maniac?

It seemed to me that after Nick got spanked a bit for putting his foot in his mouth a while back, the tone on this site got quite a bit more civil and respectful. As a result we've heard form a lot of new voices lately... I think that people get scared off when they see others getting "attacked" harshly... which tends to leave us with a "good old boys" network... If we really care about trees, it would be good for us to be as inclusive here as possible.

And in this situation perhaps it worked out fo the best.. you certainly got my attention.

God Bless All,
Daniel

 

[geofore]

Low branches

I don't buy into it is easier to mow if the lower branches are removed, What, your riding mower does not have a rack on it for carrying a weedwacker? Get off the mower and weedwack the the grass in that area under the low branches, you are going to wack around the tree anyway or mulch. It is more of a question of how much work are you willing to put into maintaining the lawn to look that way. You will get people who ask to have all the trees removed so all they have is lawn to mow, "Don't forget to grind out the stumps because I don't want to mow around stumps either."

 

[TREETX]

Lets just let all the low branches grow, right down to the ground all of em. That way no activites can go on in the yard. None. That is good because then we can let dead trees just stand until they fall. Hazard being eliminated due to the fact there are no activities underneath. Then just let them fall and stay in the yard. Good wildlife habitat and it keeps the lawn guy from getting close to any precious lower branches.

How about something different than wall to wall grass. Grass should be an accent if present at all, not the center piece.

Yeah lower branches whuhooo!!!!
Power to the branches!!!! No more arbo man tryin to but a little supressed branch down, us little branches have been hood-winked, bamboozled, run-amuck. We didn't land on the lawn, the lawn landed on us.

How about manking decisions on a case by case basis.
:angel:

Nate

 

[geofore]

low

Ouch, TREETX, case by case is best but I don't see removing all low branches just because they are low as the answer either. I went to look at a job today, homeowner wants all the trees topped so they don't grow tall enough to hit the house if they fall over. My suggestion is to plant smaller trees as the larger ones are removed a few at a time and space them better. The trees were planted when the house was built to block road noise with no consideration to how big the trees would grow over time. Someone topped the trees once before and it will be difficult to trim them now to get them to look like the homeowner wants now. They want limbs to the ground and green all year. Pine to replace pine but better spacing or different type of pine will work, otherwise the trees will need to be trimmed often to keep them in check. I shake my head when I see lawns planted like this for fast growth to get some green up and no long term thinking of what the trees will be like 10 or 20 years later.

 

[TREETX]

Really, the thick sarcasm wasn't targeted toward you. Just any blanket statement to save them all. I think everyone here know what good work is and do good work, for the clients and the trees. Expressing views can get a bit carried away.