remove or save
- Thread starter kowens
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,983
Once they put the responsibility on you to decide, you almost have to take it out, for liability reasons. If they want to save it, you'll want something in writting that states there's a risk in keeping it.
That said, I agree that it still looks pretty strong, from what I can tell in the pictures. Perhaps something could be done with cabling to lessen the risk.
That said, I agree that it still looks pretty strong, from what I can tell in the pictures. Perhaps something could be done with cabling to lessen the risk.
Dadatwins
Addicted to ArboristSite
NeTree
Addicted to ArboristSite
I agree.
Get a waiver in writing, but don't worry a whole lot either.
We see alot of trees that look like that, and suprisingly, they aren't the one's that fail often.
As long as the tree is otherwise sound, ie no insects chewing it to shreds/cracks in leads/etc, rig a dynamic system and leave it be.
Guy Meilleur
Addicted to ArboristSite
If this were in Raleigh's historic district, they'd have you jump thru 18 hoops to make a removal case and then you may not get thru. I've raised the bar for proving hazard lately, tho it may slip down again under pressure.
Good eye, Rocky, yes it has been topped, and if the decay from the topping cuts meets the decay at the base then you have a hollow tree. But as Mike said, it may be a very safe tree. Since the growth from the topping cuts is likely to be poorly attached, reduction of sprawling end weight is likely to be the first order of business before cabling.
But don't get Mike and me started on THAT one again!
You asked for suggestions?
#1. Contract with the owner to do an aerial risk assessment so he pays you to climb the tree, check out the topping cuts, sound for decay with a rubber mallet, look for cracks,streaks,bugs, or any other sign of defect. Or if you think owner will balk at paying for inspection then sell phase 1 of pruning job and take out dead wood while you're up there.
#2 ID tree and pest species, look at vigor of tree, make a guesstimate of useful life expectancy and present your findings and opinions on management options to the owner in a written form that will remove liability concerns.
#3. Do not listen to the armchair Kevorkians who may post and say based on their telewisdom the tree has to go. See the "Safe tree" post below; the poster evidently couldn't be bothered to gather data besides a little numbercrunching, and instead seemed to be looking for moral support on a decision he didn't take the time to competently make on his own.
Numbercrunching is fine but you cannot ignore the research on the strength of woundwood published by Kane in JoA, which proves that strength formulas are not reliable on trees with a lot of woundwood, such as yours.
Re liability, if removal is recommended without adequate consideration, the owner would have grounds to come after you for malpractice, and pursue a claim for the value of the lost tree.
Guy Meilleur
Addicted to ArboristSite
Rocky having consulted for plaintiffs who had trees incompetently cut, and seen them win judgments, I'm here to tell you that exposure to liability for imcompetent arboricultural practice should be a real concern to company owners. I agree it's "out there", but so is million$ for hot coffee in a lady's lap.
netree the evidence could be photographic if the client comes out while the crew is working. Lack of documentation is also evidence of neglect, and possibly of misrepresenting oneself as a professional, then acting unprofessionally. Believe it; there was a $40,000 award in such a case.
dadatwins you get paid to grind stumps but would only skim this one to avoid damaging the nearby tree. Glad to have you here! If I get any stump work in Richmond I'll call ya. If you want to sub a day climbing Feb 28 give me a call.
You weren't at Ginter last Thursday were you?
save or remove
the tree in question is not the one that has been topped
tree A is the tree you can see at bottem of tree cavity is starting to show at house side the problem with cableing is tree B that has been topped
the tree in question is not the one that has been topped
tree A is the tree you can see at bottem of tree cavity is starting to show at house side the problem with cableing is tree B that has been topped
Guy Meilleur
Addicted to ArboristSite
Re: save or remove
If it had been topped that alone is not reason enough to condemn it to death. But we don't want to get sidetracked here do we? :Monkey:
Sorry I got confused by the pics. If it hasn't been topped, all the more reason to sell a deadwooding/inspection:Eye: and get enough data to enable the customer to make an informed decision.
If it had been topped that alone is not reason enough to condemn it to death.
But we don't want to get sidetracked here do we? :Monkey:
MasterBlaster
TreeHouse Elder
Kowens, I would figure out a way to cable it to the topped tree. Even if it means going lower than normal on tree A than you normally would. And, of course, I wouldn't attach the cable to the leads that grew from the topping.
I would probably lighten up the tree, also. Its hard to tell from the lack of a crown picture.
I would probably lighten up the tree, also. Its hard to tell from the lack of a crown picture.
NeTree
Addicted to ArboristSite
Guy... since noone else has asked,
Do you think everyone else here is stupid? Or do your posts just come out that way?
Seems like you think you're the only one here who knows what he's talking about.
No offense intended.
Do you think everyone else here is stupid? Or do your posts just come out that way?
Seems like you think you're the only one here who knows what he's talking about.
No offense intended.
MasterBlaster
TreeHouse Elder
Whatever fits the situation, cables/rods/Cobra.
Hard to see from those pics.
Hard to see from those pics.
Similar threads
