Should Tree Branch be Removed?

[ThunderGun10]

I have a maple tree in my yard that has been in the ground a about 2.5 years now. Someone mentioned in passing to me that one of the branches should have been removed when the tree was younger by the people who sold and planted it for me. I don't know much about trees and am curious to get some help in determining whether or not the branch can or should be cut off now. I have attached a couple pictures of the tree. The branch in reference is the left one coming off the main trunk. It is a rather large branch and cutting it off would make the tree look worse and lopsided now, but would it be better in the long run? Or am I better off just leaving it? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[farmer steve]

I have a maple tree in my yard that has been in the ground a about 2.5 years now. Someone mentioned in passing to me that one of the branches should have been removed when the tree was younger by the people who sold and planted it for me. I don't know much about trees and am curious to get some help in determining whether or not the branch can or should be cut off now. I have attached a couple pictures of the tree. The branch in reference is the left one coming off the main trunk. It is a rather large branch and cutting it off would make the tree look worse and lopsided now, but would it be better in the long run? Or am I better off just leaving it? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

View attachment 1075150View attachment 1075151

I think I would leave it. Like you said the tree would look out of shape. If anything I'd remove the 3rd branch up that is laying on the second branch. Welcome to AS.
EDIT. Maybe it might be the second branch I'd remove. The one that goes up and makes a hard 90* to the right. Hard to see on the phone.

 

[Del_]

That appears to be a co-dominate stem as it has no branch collar.

I'd leave it.

 

[cahaak]

I would trim it off. When the tree gets larger, it will look a lot better if there is only a singular main trunk up to at least 8'. To be honest, I shoot for 12-16'. If it is an Autumn Blaze, the strong upright growing habit will help some. Think about what that tree is going to look like when it is 50' tall and has a major branch 4' off the ground. Shape is nothing at this point, that will all fill in later and you will still have plenty of foliage on the tree after taking that branch off.

 

[dboyd351]

I would remove both the second and third branches (the 2 that cross) but not the one you asked about, based on your photos. But it also depends on what it looks like looking at it from the side - whether it will look balenced.
You don't want branches that are nearly 90 degrees to trunk and you don't want branches that cross.

 

[Seachaser]

Two forks are trying to become the central leader. I would remove both.

 

[jgeng70]

I think I would leave it. Like you said the tree would look out of shape. If anything I'd remove the 3rd branch up that is laying on the second branch. Welcome to AS.
EDIT. Maybe it might be the second branch I'd remove. The one that goes up and makes a hard 90* to the right. Hard to see on the phone.

I agree, the only time a healthy lower branch is a real problem is when it grows horizontally, starving the top branches of nutrients. The pictures of your tree look like a simple pruning of the top branches to maintain a nice shape and make the branches stronger if your area is subject to snow and ice damage. Another consideration on a tree that is more full of branches is to make sure there aren't so many branches on the sunny side that the branches on the back can't get sun and the tree gets lopsided.