The Climber
ArboristSite Member
I think the ammount of passion expressed, and the willingness of many on this site to share their knolage and experiance is a verry good thing for both the tree's and the industry.
pruning practices
- Thread starter murphy4trees
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
gregorylnd
ArboristSite Lurker
To CITYUF,
I love your suggestion about putting it in writing that the customer has been told that what they want to do is against accepted industry standards, and that their decision may affect any future claims. My boss is a hacker and the only way I have made progress with trimming practices is this same approach. He refuses to read anything from ANSI so I have to quote it to him and then print out a copy of the section. PEOPLE LEARN SLOW and we all need patience to allow for that.
God Bless, Gregory
I love your suggestion about putting it in writing that the customer has been told that what they want to do is against accepted industry standards, and that their decision may affect any future claims. My boss is a hacker and the only way I have made progress with trimming practices is this same approach. He refuses to read anything from ANSI so I have to quote it to him and then print out a copy of the section. PEOPLE LEARN SLOW and we all need patience to allow for that.
God Bless, Gregory
murphy4trees
Addicted to ArboristSite
repair this!
Both Tom and Mike have tried to compare the damage from topping to the damage from elevating. MM’s post on the pruning honey locust thread is “” If you think about it, a topped tree can be repaired, a stripped up tree cannot. You cannot glue those branches back on the bottom, nor will they grow back.” And TD’s from this thread is ” 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]….I have to agree.”
Though these statements may serve to bring awareness to the issue of unnecessarily and routinely elevating trees, I think they are at best misleading. This pic is of a tree I get to see every time I drive up my street. Maybe that’s my penance for having elevated too many trees???
God Bless All,
Daniel
Both Tom and Mike have tried to compare the damage from topping to the damage from elevating. MM’s post on the pruning honey locust thread is “” If you think about it, a topped tree can be repaired, a stripped up tree cannot. You cannot glue those branches back on the bottom, nor will they grow back.” And TD’s from this thread is ” 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]….I have to agree.”
Though these statements may serve to bring awareness to the issue of unnecessarily and routinely elevating trees, I think they are at best misleading. This pic is of a tree I get to see every time I drive up my street. Maybe that’s my penance for having elevated too many trees???
God Bless All,
Daniel
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,983
The tree pictured has had about everything in the book done to it which causes harm, including being raised.
Had that been a healthy tree at the time it was topped, there is a good chance it would replace the missing foliage in several years and with the right care been a nice tree again.
As it is, having been raised, the roots cut off two sides, repeated injuries to the trunk from mowers, veeing out by the power company, and many other distructive things, the tree had little chance to recover from the topping.
Downplaying the harmful role crown raising has on trees is a huge disservice to everyone. I could downplay wearing spikes while trimming, I don' t think it's as as bad as topping, so don't worry about it, right?
I have done repair work on trees that were topped by nature, and those topped by hacks. In both cases given time and not too severe a topping, the trees can grow back and look normal. The same thing cannot be said about over raising.
Had that been a healthy tree at the time it was topped, there is a good chance it would replace the missing foliage in several years and with the right care been a nice tree again.
As it is, having been raised, the roots cut off two sides, repeated injuries to the trunk from mowers, veeing out by the power company, and many other distructive things, the tree had little chance to recover from the topping.
Downplaying the harmful role crown raising has on trees is a huge disservice to everyone. I could downplay wearing spikes while trimming, I don' t think it's as as bad as topping, so don't worry about it, right?
I have done repair work on trees that were topped by nature, and those topped by hacks. In both cases given time and not too severe a topping, the trees can grow back and look normal. The same thing cannot be said about over raising.
murphy4trees
Addicted to ArboristSite
My thinking on this tree is that it was topped in the summer and that it was most likely in relatively good health before topping. Because it is fully exposed, the sun would have burned the remaining limbs no matter what condition the tree was in.
This is not intended to downplay the harm that elevating does... just a reality check.
God Bless,
Daniel
This is not intended to downplay the harm that elevating does... just a reality check.
God Bless,
Daniel
Stumper
One Man Band
I agree (mostly) with Mike. The pictured tree was butchered. Many times ,if the tree was healthy to begin with, there will be regrowth that can be 'straightened out' with long term care. Other times death results soon and there can be no salvage.
Thanks for saying "overraised" Mike. I'll agree that a deciduous tree may take a decade or 3 to shed lower limbs and that they do contribute to the tree's health. Getting the canopy 6 or 8 feet above ground level may not technically be "good" for the tree but isn't necessarily very "bad" either. Think about this. Why do trees not replace lower limbs that are pruned off? They will (if they have the necessary reserves) regrow a top. The difference may lie in the fact that the top is essential to the tree's health and survival. Lower limbs are not. If the tree is "overraised" as you termed it ,Mike, then we do see the formation of masses of watersprouts.-The tree is trying to replace essential canopy. Small lower branches, while contributory to the tree are not essential -long term they will often autoelliminate/self-prune. If they are lost prematurely the tree will not waste effort reproducing them. We've been arguing about this long enough. I really am not trying to keep the argument going. I appreciate your "passion" for the trees but the "blasting" that we started off with was good for an argument but kind of counterproductive to thoughtful discussion. I apologize for any blasting from my end. I agree that automatically whacking off lower limbs on every prune is all too common (I see it all around me) and is harmful. I don't consider pruning off small lower branches and tip thinning and lightening to provide walking clearance to be in the same class. City trees here are in decline all over town. No hatracking has been done but severe "dropcrotching" has been perpetrated by the city after extreme overraising (30 + feet). (in some cases they reversed the order of abuse ) I drove past and grimaced as They raised and gutted a beautiful 30"dbh American Elm last week. The Tree ALREADY had over 20' of clearance before they started. They whacked off a couple of large lower limbs then lions-tailed the rest. I guess that if they follow their pattern they'll come back and "dropcrotch" it in a couple of years. Then, as it starves to death, they'll cry about Dutch Elm disease.
P.S. Murph, Really is tragic that the perpetrators of that hack job didn't at least wait for winter to give the poor tree a little bit of a chance!
Thanks for saying "overraised" Mike. I'll agree that a deciduous tree may take a decade or 3 to shed lower limbs and that they do contribute to the tree's health. Getting the canopy 6 or 8 feet above ground level may not technically be "good" for the tree but isn't necessarily very "bad" either. Think about this. Why do trees not replace lower limbs that are pruned off? They will (if they have the necessary reserves) regrow a top. The difference may lie in the fact that the top is essential to the tree's health and survival. Lower limbs are not. If the tree is "overraised" as you termed it ,Mike, then we do see the formation of masses of watersprouts.-The tree is trying to replace essential canopy. Small lower branches, while contributory to the tree are not essential -long term they will often autoelliminate/self-prune. If they are lost prematurely the tree will not waste effort reproducing them. We've been arguing about this long enough. I really am not trying to keep the argument going. I appreciate your "passion" for the trees but the "blasting" that we started off with was good for an argument but kind of counterproductive to thoughtful discussion. I apologize for any blasting from my end. I agree that automatically whacking off lower limbs on every prune is all too common (I see it all around me) and is harmful. I don't consider pruning off small lower branches and tip thinning and lightening to provide walking clearance to be in the same class. City trees here are in decline all over town. No hatracking has been done but severe "dropcrotching" has been perpetrated by the city after extreme overraising (30 + feet). (in some cases they reversed the order of abuse
) I drove past and grimaced as They raised and gutted a beautiful 30"dbh American Elm last week. The Tree ALREADY had over 20' of clearance before they started. They whacked off a couple of large lower limbs then lions-tailed the rest. I guess that if they follow their pattern they'll come back and "dropcrotch" it in a couple of years. Then, as it starves to death, they'll cry about Dutch Elm disease.P.S. Murph, Really is tragic that the perpetrators of that hack job didn't at least wait for winter to give the poor tree a little bit of a chance!
Last edited:
Here's a nice example of a birch left to grow naturally.
I spotted it the other day while doing estimates. I saw no historical signs of any pruning. Left alone, it looks pretty good!
Had this been a nicer landscape, most likely the tree would have been manicured.
I spotted it the other day while doing estimates. I saw no historical signs of any pruning. Left alone, it looks pretty good!
Had this been a nicer landscape, most likely the tree would have been manicured.
murphy4trees
Addicted to ArboristSite
I’d like to use the pic RB posted to tie this conversation back to my original point. What’s the best thing to do for this tree???a) Raise and gut? b) lightly elevate? c)Top? d)Tie high, work the tips and make small cuts? Or e) Do no pruning at all? There is no question in my mind that given sound structural integrity, this tree is better off left alone.
So which one would you sell?
No pruning at all can be recommended but not sold. So how many companies out there will talk themselves out of work and walk away from that tree?
How many of us are even ready to look at this? The thread was relatively quiet when that was the question. As soon as I mentioned elevating as a “very often a good practice”, the debate got hot. The point here is that few are willing to get honest about this subject because it means admitting that we are selling lies. It’s easier just to lie to ourselves.
TD and MM argue for doing what is best for the tree, not the people, not the turf etc. TD wrote “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.” That statement says a lot. To me, the language implies self deception. As if pruning hard is good and pruning less is better. When the truth is pruning hard is harmful and pruning less is less harmful. Trees are healthier??? Healthier than what? Healthier than if you hadn’t pruned them? Tom, you refer to the science of tree care when you speak of Starch tests, Twig elongation, and Chromatic comparisons. Where is the science to support the above statements?.. specifically pruning makes trees healthier..
There has never been a double blind study that proved the efficacy of cardiac bypass surgery. Never has been, never will be. Therefore there is no scientific support for the practice. Now imagine you’re a heart surgeon making $2.5 million/year and someone comes along and says bypass surgery is harmful.. not helpful. Are you going to thank him for the information and find a new career or ignore him or maybe decide he’s a threat and destroy him?
God Bless All,
Daniel
So which one would you sell?
No pruning at all can be recommended but not sold. So how many companies out there will talk themselves out of work and walk away from that tree?
How many of us are even ready to look at this? The thread was relatively quiet when that was the question. As soon as I mentioned elevating as a “very often a good practice”, the debate got hot. The point here is that few are willing to get honest about this subject because it means admitting that we are selling lies. It’s easier just to lie to ourselves.
TD and MM argue for doing what is best for the tree, not the people, not the turf etc. TD wrote “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.” That statement says a lot. To me, the language implies self deception. As if pruning hard is good and pruning less is better. When the truth is pruning hard is harmful and pruning less is less harmful. Trees are healthier??? Healthier than what? Healthier than if you hadn’t pruned them? Tom, you refer to the science of tree care when you speak of Starch tests, Twig elongation, and Chromatic comparisons. Where is the science to support the above statements?.. specifically pruning makes trees healthier..
There has never been a double blind study that proved the efficacy of cardiac bypass surgery. Never has been, never will be. Therefore there is no scientific support for the practice. Now imagine you’re a heart surgeon making $2.5 million/year and someone comes along and says bypass surgery is harmful.. not helpful. Are you going to thank him for the information and find a new career or ignore him or maybe decide he’s a threat and destroy him?
God Bless All,
Daniel
Last edited:
Tom Dunlap
Addicted to ArboristSite
To me, the language
implies self deception.
*Sometimes, going through life as a happy idiot is just easier.
As if pruning hard is good and pruning less is better. When
the truth is pruning hard is harmful and pruning less is less harmful.
*hard...less...better...harmful... According to what measuring stick? Truth? According to who? You need to show what truth you're using. All of this discussion pivots around what goals we set at the beginning. If the goal is to make a chipper payment then the more wood put on the ground the better job is done. If, this is my truth, the goal is to balance the harm to the tree and the needs/desires of the client, then, GENERALLY!, less is better. Am I decieving myself? Nope! I know what I'm doing and the consequnces of tthose actions. I've been in treework for over thirty years, full time for about twenty five. I base my truth on what I've observed and what I've been taught and learned.
Trees are healthier??? Healthier than what? Healthier than if you hadn’t pruned them?
*Healthier than if they were removed, for sure. Healthier since the more leaves there are on the tree the more food the tree makes to support itself. When leaves are removed the food factory is removed. Also, limb removal leads to root loss. This is known and accepted science. Any arbo book will document these facts.
Tom, you refer to the science of tree care when you speak of Starch tests, Twig elongation, and Chromatic comparisons. Where is the science to support the above statements?..
*These are standard measures of tree health. I don't have the time to teach on these forums. Google is one of the best ways to teach yourself. If you want to learn more about starch tests, read Shigo. Like I've written before, discussion forums aren't always the best places to learn. It is your responsibility to educate your self in your profession. If you don't, you have a career not a profession. The science is well established. Just because I can't , or don't have the time to, quote chapter and verse, doesn't make the science unavailable. If you want to know more about chromatic comparison, write to me off line. I couple of summers ago a grad student worked for me who did her MS work on that subject. I'm sure that she would be willing to share the data with you. It might require you to write directly to her and pay for the copying of her MS paper, but I'm sure that you'll be convinced of the practice's viability. She recieved her MS from the University of Minnesota so, for me, that establishes credibility. I know most of the people on her review committee and they are knowledgable, credible people.
If anyone thinks that I advocate not pruning any tree, you sure don't know me. I do advocate a lot less pruning than is being done though. Getting into arguements about damage detracts from moving the discussion forward. If I didn't accept that I do some damage, I would find a new profession. I base my decisions on the outcomes and consequences of my actions.
Tom
implies self deception.
*Sometimes, going through life as a happy idiot is just easier.
As if pruning hard is good and pruning less is better. When
the truth is pruning hard is harmful and pruning less is less harmful.
*hard...less...better...harmful... According to what measuring stick? Truth? According to who? You need to show what truth you're using. All of this discussion pivots around what goals we set at the beginning. If the goal is to make a chipper payment then the more wood put on the ground the better job is done. If, this is my truth, the goal is to balance the harm to the tree and the needs/desires of the client, then, GENERALLY!, less is better. Am I decieving myself? Nope! I know what I'm doing and the consequnces of tthose actions. I've been in treework for over thirty years, full time for about twenty five. I base my truth on what I've observed and what I've been taught and learned.
Trees are healthier??? Healthier than what? Healthier than if you hadn’t pruned them?
*Healthier than if they were removed, for sure. Healthier since the more leaves there are on the tree the more food the tree makes to support itself. When leaves are removed the food factory is removed. Also, limb removal leads to root loss. This is known and accepted science. Any arbo book will document these facts.
Tom, you refer to the science of tree care when you speak of Starch tests, Twig elongation, and Chromatic comparisons. Where is the science to support the above statements?..
*These are standard measures of tree health. I don't have the time to teach on these forums. Google is one of the best ways to teach yourself. If you want to learn more about starch tests, read Shigo. Like I've written before, discussion forums aren't always the best places to learn. It is your responsibility to educate your self in your profession. If you don't, you have a career not a profession. The science is well established. Just because I can't , or don't have the time to, quote chapter and verse, doesn't make the science unavailable. If you want to know more about chromatic comparison, write to me off line. I couple of summers ago a grad student worked for me who did her MS work on that subject. I'm sure that she would be willing to share the data with you. It might require you to write directly to her and pay for the copying of her MS paper, but I'm sure that you'll be convinced of the practice's viability. She recieved her MS from the University of Minnesota so, for me, that establishes credibility. I know most of the people on her review committee and they are knowledgable, credible people.
If anyone thinks that I advocate not pruning any tree, you sure don't know me. I do advocate a lot less pruning than is being done though. Getting into arguements about damage detracts from moving the discussion forward. If I didn't accept that I do some damage, I would find a new profession. I base my decisions on the outcomes and consequences of my actions.
Tom
Stumper
One Man Band
Murph, In answer to your question regarding selling work on RB's birch. I'm confident that there are some dead limbs scattered throughout the canopy.
Mr. Customer, do you like the low hanging limbs? Yes? Okay then I recommend removing the dead wood (x size and above) and taking out any broken branches.
or
No? Okay I recommend removing dead and broken limbs and removing growth from the underside and tips of these lower limbs. We should be able to get you some clearance without removing any major limbs and retain the general shape of the tree.
Mr. Customer, do you like the low hanging limbs? Yes? Okay then I recommend removing the dead wood (x size and above) and taking out any broken branches.
or
No? Okay I recommend removing dead and broken limbs and removing growth from the underside and tips of these lower limbs. We should be able to get you some clearance without removing any major limbs and retain the general shape of the tree.
murphy4trees
Addicted to ArboristSite
Tom,
I appreciate you sharing so much knowledge with us here and all the study it must have taken to learn so much. My pont is that we arbos don't do what is good for trees... Is removing a hazardous tree good for it? No, it's good for people. IMO our job is to do what's good for people by serving their needs, while doing as little harm to trees as necessary.
Is pruning good for trees? IMO rarely... So we again do it for people... there must be some benfit to it for the people or they wouldn't pay for it. MAny times the benefit to people is that it makes them feel good cause they think they are "taking care of their trees", when the trees in fact are better off left alone. And that is where the salesmanship and money comes in.
Stumper,
You said you'd sell the deadwood if not a light pruning on the pic RB posted... That might make the tree look really good... I'd sell it too.. but does it do the tree any good?
You asked if I had after pics of the red oak. I took them yesterday. So here are the pics. This one is the before, which was posted earlier.
God Bless,
Daniel
I appreciate you sharing so much knowledge with us here and all the study it must have taken to learn so much. My pont is that we arbos don't do what is good for trees... Is removing a hazardous tree good for it? No, it's good for people. IMO our job is to do what's good for people by serving their needs, while doing as little harm to trees as necessary.
Is pruning good for trees? IMO rarely... So we again do it for people... there must be some benfit to it for the people or they wouldn't pay for it. MAny times the benefit to people is that it makes them feel good cause they think they are "taking care of their trees", when the trees in fact are better off left alone. And that is where the salesmanship and money comes in.
Stumper,
You said you'd sell the deadwood if not a light pruning on the pic RB posted... That might make the tree look really good... I'd sell it too.. but does it do the tree any good?
You asked if I had after pics of the red oak. I took them yesterday. So here are the pics. This one is the before, which was posted earlier.
God Bless,
Daniel
murphy4trees
Addicted to ArboristSite
And here is the after pic.
The tree looks good and the customer was real happy and thought he got his money's worth. But did pruning do the tree any good?
And did I tell him that the tree would look better, we'd get the deadwood out, BUT pruning is bad for the tree's health?
I charged $950 for the job. What would you have sold to this customer?
God Bless All,
Daniel
The tree looks good and the customer was real happy and thought he got his money's worth. But did pruning do the tree any good?
And did I tell him that the tree would look better, we'd get the deadwood out, BUT pruning is bad for the tree's health?
I charged $950 for the job. What would you have sold to this customer?
God Bless All,
Daniel
Tom Dunlap
Addicted to ArboristSite
Murph,
I'm spitting out the hook after I finish this post. Your cartwheeling through this thread is making less and less sense.
There are very few choices or decisions that are 100% good or bad. Most times, we end up in the wide range in the middle of the scale.
Since you seem to be the one saying that all pruning is actually beneficial to trees, take some time and share with us your documented plan for dealing with dead wood in trees. No one liners or answering questions with questions. Put something on the line. Show me what you know and believe. Otherwise these sort of threads are nothing but coffee table talk.
Splook...I'm done with this thread...
Tom
I'm spitting out the hook after I finish this post. Your cartwheeling through this thread is making less and less sense.
There are very few choices or decisions that are 100% good or bad. Most times, we end up in the wide range in the middle of the scale.
Since you seem to be the one saying that all pruning is actually beneficial to trees, take some time and share with us your documented plan for dealing with dead wood in trees. No one liners or answering questions with questions. Put something on the line. Show me what you know and believe. Otherwise these sort of threads are nothing but coffee table talk.
Splook...I'm done with this thread...
Tom
Stumper
One Man Band
Murph, The oak looks good. Thinner than I would have left it but it looks good. I would have sold a similar op but wouldn't have got that much $. (Pardon me while I kick myself for undercharging.)
Is what I proposed for the birch beneficial to the tree? I would say yes, although it probably isn't very significant. When trees self prune they frequently due so through decay. Cutting out dead wood via targeted cuts reduces the incidence of decay since the compartmentalized wood is covered by callus tisue quickly instead of a dead branch rotting out of a deep collar/socket. In any case, making trees look good is a worthy end(IMO) provided it doesn't greatly endanger the tree's health. The operations that do pose serious health risks also make trees look awful(again IMO).
Is what I proposed for the birch beneficial to the tree? I would say yes, although it probably isn't very significant. When trees self prune they frequently due so through decay. Cutting out dead wood via targeted cuts reduces the incidence of decay since the compartmentalized wood is covered by callus tisue quickly instead of a dead branch rotting out of a deep collar/socket. In any case, making trees look good is a worthy end(IMO) provided it doesn't greatly endanger the tree's health. The operations that do pose serious health risks also make trees look awful(again IMO).
murphy4trees
Addicted to ArboristSite
Does anyone know the science on this?
Does pruning out the deadwood benefit the tree's health?
I have a 4 big oaks in the backyard of a house we bought in May.
One of the four is in serious decline... lots of deadwood, but nothing too big or over the house or driveway.. I haven't pruned that tree yet nor do I plan to do so anytime soon. So far all I've done is some minor pruing on the lower branches of two others to open up a view of the park behind us, from the porch. All of them are stressed from butchery, gaffing, and the dumping of NPK on the lawn regularly by the former owner... dry summers have't helped either. These are important shade trees.. south side of the house and I hate A/C.
So for now I'll pick up the sticks when they fall and may do some organic fertilization and possibly radial trenching... but no pruning.
Tom,
Apparently I haven't done a good job of explaining myself. Work has been busy and I haven't had much time to devote here, though this thread has brought up a lot for me. Hope to get to it later.
God Bless All,
Daniel
This pic is an after shot of the whole red oak. I think this pruning was not beneficial to the tree. The reason I pruned this tree was for the money $$$. And the tree looks good and the customer is happy.
Does pruning out the deadwood benefit the tree's health?
I have a 4 big oaks in the backyard of a house we bought in May.
One of the four is in serious decline... lots of deadwood, but nothing too big or over the house or driveway.. I haven't pruned that tree yet nor do I plan to do so anytime soon. So far all I've done is some minor pruing on the lower branches of two others to open up a view of the park behind us, from the porch. All of them are stressed from butchery, gaffing, and the dumping of NPK on the lawn regularly by the former owner... dry summers have't helped either. These are important shade trees.. south side of the house and I hate A/C.
So for now I'll pick up the sticks when they fall and may do some organic fertilization and possibly radial trenching... but no pruning.
Tom,
Apparently I haven't done a good job of explaining myself. Work has been busy and I haven't had much time to devote here, though this thread has brought up a lot for me. Hope to get to it later.
God Bless All,
Daniel
This pic is an after shot of the whole red oak. I think this pruning was not beneficial to the tree. The reason I pruned this tree was for the money $$$. And the tree looks good and the customer is happy.
treeclimber165
Member A.K.A Skwerl
The oaks down here keep their leaves year around, so it's difficult for me to tell. But it looks like you hit it a little hard, Daniel. It looks similar to lots of hard pruning I see around here. I don't like trimming out leads 20'-25' before the first leaf but many around here trim every tree like that. I generally like to stick with only pruning out dead or dying, structurally unsound, and the occassional small (1"-1½") limb that might be seriously inhibiting the path of my lifeline (I call that 'selective pruning'). Most of the guys I climb for want to see stripped out leads, but I'm slowly winning them over by example. They rarely follow behind me and cut out healthy interior growth with the polesaw any more.
Looks a bit much to me too, Murph. But, around these parts, some good companies tend to prune like that or even moreso. We dont get as much sun as most parts of the country, so people want less shade, not more.
Anyhow, I played with your pic a bit....lightened it up, and put in some color that wasn't there
Anyhow, I played with your pic a bit....lightened it up, and put in some color that wasn't there
murphy4trees
Addicted to ArboristSite
This tree was pruned by Big john from trbz..
I actually was only on the job for a few minutes...
To my knowledge... he only took out two live branches that were over 3", and there wasn't much brush when he was finished.. though the pic does look like he took a lot.. I know he worked every tip... he always does.
The tree hadn't been pruned in at least 25-30 years and there was plenty of dead.
And you may recall that earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I could tell the customer wanted a lot taken out.... wanted to "get his money's worth". Although I did give him the "more is not better" talk, keeping the customer happy may have been on John's mind.
After we got finished the customer told me the tree had some die back, which I was not aware of. John also said the tree was "not happy"... some kind of blisters on the bark. So there may have been a lot of dead tips.
I'll post more before and after pics on other pruning jobs.
God bless,
Daniel
I actually was only on the job for a few minutes...
To my knowledge... he only took out two live branches that were over 3", and there wasn't much brush when he was finished.. though the pic does look like he took a lot.. I know he worked every tip... he always does.
The tree hadn't been pruned in at least 25-30 years and there was plenty of dead.
And you may recall that earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I could tell the customer wanted a lot taken out.... wanted to "get his money's worth". Although I did give him the "more is not better" talk, keeping the customer happy may have been on John's mind.
After we got finished the customer told me the tree had some die back, which I was not aware of. John also said the tree was "not happy"... some kind of blisters on the bark. So there may have been a lot of dead tips.
I'll post more before and after pics on other pruning jobs.
God bless,
Daniel
Last edited:
murphy4trees
Addicted to ArboristSite
Here is another oak Big John pruned....
This tree is relatively healthy, not too much deadwood, though there is a couple big rubbing branches on the backside which we left.. Is there some kind of abrasion resistant material we can cover the bark with? Another option would be lifting and cabling the upper branch. I have a video of the rub, but no stills.
I think John did a great job of pruning this tree, though I would have preferred he left a few more of the lower suckers, over the driveway. The tree looks great and he took some weight off the tips growing over the building. The customer had a couple branches in an adjascent oak come down this summer and he wanted to keep the trees safe.
So I sold the job, though in my thinking it was not necessary. I think the tree would have been better off left alone. The customer is happy. How many of you would have ecouraged the customer to leave the tree alone? If I had done so, he might have called someone else, which is taking a chance on some hack mutilating this majestic tree..
On a sentimental note, I went to school at this building starting at age 2. So this tree had an early influence on my life.
God Bless All,
Daniel
So here is the before pic.
This tree is relatively healthy, not too much deadwood, though there is a couple big rubbing branches on the backside which we left.. Is there some kind of abrasion resistant material we can cover the bark with? Another option would be lifting and cabling the upper branch. I have a video of the rub, but no stills.
I think John did a great job of pruning this tree, though I would have preferred he left a few more of the lower suckers, over the driveway. The tree looks great and he took some weight off the tips growing over the building. The customer had a couple branches in an adjascent oak come down this summer and he wanted to keep the trees safe.
So I sold the job, though in my thinking it was not necessary. I think the tree would have been better off left alone. The customer is happy. How many of you would have ecouraged the customer to leave the tree alone? If I had done so, he might have called someone else, which is taking a chance on some hack mutilating this majestic tree..
On a sentimental note, I went to school at this building starting at age 2. So this tree had an early influence on my life.
God Bless All,
Daniel
So here is the before pic.
murphy4trees
Addicted to ArboristSite
Here is Big John working teh tips out by the Spruce
