spike trimming malpractice?

[Rftreeman]

ya'll can preach all you want but I'm sticking to my story......

any of you "arborist" care to prove to me one single case where a tree has died or has a gaping decay spot or was infested with insects as a result of being spiked, I'm sure you can find some cases where there is a bad spot on a tree from a saw cut......

 

[mr. holden wood]

ya'll can preach all you want but I'm sticking to my story......

any of you "arborist" care to prove to me one single case where a tree has died or has a gaping decay spot or was infested with insects as a result of being spiked, I'm sure you can find some cases where there is a bad spot on a tree from a saw cut......

So were all pruning without spikes to kill time and get paid to work out? Time is money, if we didn't think spiking trees would lead to decline/death we would still be doing it. Why are you so resistant to change, is it because you are unable to work without spikes ,if so this forum is not for you.
To lighten the mood, what do Dale Earnhardt and Pink Floyd have in common? Their last big hit was the Wall.:]

 

[Rftreeman]

So were all pruning without spikes to kill time and get paid to work out? Time is money, if we didn't think spiking trees would lead to decline/death we would still be doing it. Why are you so resistant to change, is it because you are unable to work without spikes ,if so this forum is not for you.
To lighten the mood, what do Dale Earnhardt and Pink Floyd have in common? Their last big hit was the Wall.:]

that's a good one, I'll have to remember that one..


as for working without spikes it's not that I can't if I need to but I don't need to, I only do removals but I've never heard of a tree that died or is declining due to it being spiked, if that was the case there would be a billion dead or declining trees along the utility right of ways the world would there not, I can show you trees that I know 100% that have been spiked several times and they are just as health as ever...

just think about all the new gear that comes out each year, they have to keep making money and that's all it is, a money thing, someone saw a market one day for climbing without spikes and here we are today arguing about it...

 

[Rftreeman]

Do get your blood pressure checked? Eyes? Prostrate? Cholesterol level? Sugar? Do you have a smoke detector in your house?

Maybe you ought to face up to the fact that some people know more than you do on a subject and go with the common scientific knowledge. Believing anti tree spiking is about equipment sales begs the question........Mental health check up?

you might be on to something there......lol...but I'm still waiting on proof that spiking a tree will cause it to die or decline so bad that it can't be saved....

I don't do trim jobs with spikes, I refer all my trims to another person.......

 

[treeseer]

t ...I'm still waiting on proof that spiking a tree will cause it to die or decline so bad that it can't be saved....

This is the first one I documented; published in a newspaper and a newsletter...but you remind me of smokers that demand to see proof that smoking kills, then close their eyes to data. o and forgive the ####ensian references--this was a pre=chemo literary effort.

You ever been to fuquay?

A TALE OF TWO OAK TREES

Lightning struck twice in Wake County, NC last year, and two big oak trees bore the brunt. What happened next tells a tale of Scrooge-like assumptions, and how Great Expectations can go awry.

The second oak majestically defined the edge of the historic district in Fuquay-Varina. Two years before, the Capital Trees Program had given it an Historic Tree Award. Scant lawn in full sun covered half the root system, and little of the rest was mulched. The lightning damage seemed just slightly wider than the first, so the arborist started treating the wound as before.

Below some old pruning cuts halfway down, a portion of bark over 4’ square was detached. Curiously, it wasn’t near the lightning wound! Insects had entered wounds made by climbing spikes and eaten away the cambium. That climber must have dug in his spikes to keep his balance as he cut, with Great Expectations that those little holes couldn’t possibly hurt that great big tree. Aggravating this injury was the bare ground underneath. Oaks being ring-porous, the roots that were needed to help repair this damaged side of the tree had too many problems of their own to perform that function.

Added to the lightning wound, this human-made injury put the total dead bark area over one-third of the circumference. Despite insect control, fertilization, and, belatedly, mulch, the prognosis was poor. Little scar tissue grows, and half the crown is pale. The tree’s useful years were over, clearly due to the use of climbing spikes and root abuse.

Lightning may someday inflict a Twist-ed scar on your trees, but you can keep storms, disease and insects from picking your urban forest’s pocket. A healthy root environment below organic groundcover costs less than a cup of gruel. The tree provides it for free when it sheds its leaves. That, and lack of damage above the ground, can keep your trees growing great. Lightning may scare the ####ens out of you, but it’s nothing to lose all your trees over."

 

[beowulf343]

Treeseer, really? That's the best you can come up with? A tree hit by lightning, "root abused," that had old pruning cuts (nod to rftreeman theory), and was spiked. And this tree is your proof that spikes kill? Weak.

Maybe you ought to face up to the fact that some people know more than you do on a subject and go with the common scientific knowledge.

Common scientific knowledge once was that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

just think about all the new gear that comes out each year, they have to keep making money and that's all it is, a money thing, someone saw a market one day for climbing without spikes and here we are today arguing about it...

I don't know if you are stirring up trouble or are serious, but i kind of like this theory. And i agree with your other thoughts on this subject-i know trees that have been spiked on a five year cycle for decades, and they are still thriving.

On another topic.. somewhat distantly related to wounds in trees I guess.. when growing up we always tapped sugar maples each spring, and some on farm had been done for nearly a century before me.. and it never seemed to cause any long term negative impact.

Now there were only one, two or maybe three holes in the trees. But they were deeper than spur gaffs.. Never have heard about any studies on long term impact of maple production on trees.

We never had more than two or maybe a few very large trees with three spigots. But according to government studies, you can put up to four in larger trees.

TAP HOLE GUIDE
Trees less than 25 centimetres in diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 tap holes
Trees 25 to 35 centimetres in diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 tap hole
Trees 38 to 49 centimetres in diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 tap holes
Trees 50 to 60 centimetres in diameter . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .3 tap holes
Trees over 63 centimetres in diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 tap holes

Tap holes should be drilled into the tree’s whitecolored sapwood on an upward angle to a depth of 7.5 centimetres. (that is 3 inches almost straight in.. )

Has anybody ever seen any long term negative impact from maple production on trees? Now there are obvious issues with the wound itself caused by the spigot, but also there is the loss of sap in larger trees gallons of it every day for several days!

I LOVE bringing up this issue to arborists and have done it before on this site. http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=34673 We do almost 10k taps a year. We have sugar maples that have had three or four taps a year for forty years. That's got to be a lot more damaging than some spike tracks, yet never hear a bad word about it.

"Climbing spurs shall not be used when climbing or pruning trees.

Exceptions:
- in remote or rural utility rights-of-way."

Did you really read this? If the trees are on a row in the middle of nowhere, spikes are fine. What, are city trees better than country trees? That line right there is one of the reasons i'm not a big ansi fan. I have no problem with the first two exceptions to the guidline, but if they were really concerned about tree welfare, even the country trees shouldn't be spiked. So, as long as it's a tree no one is going to see, no reason not to spike it? Lol, seems a bit hypocritical to me, but go ahead and base your career on these guidelines-they obviously have the tree's best interests at heart.

 

[treeseer]

Did you really read this? If the trees are on a row in the middle of nowhere, spikes are fine. What, are city trees better than country trees? That line right there is one of the reasons i'm not a big ansi fan. I have no problem with the first two exceptions to the guidline, but if they were really concerned about tree welfare, even the country trees shouldn't be spiked. So, as long as it's a tree no one is going to see, no reason not to spike it?

Dude, you need to change your handle to Grendel! :angry2:

In the red oak I looked at, root abuse was a factor. The big dif tween city and row trees is...root abuse. row trees don't get the abuse that urban trees do, so they can manage spike wounds better.

Plus I think you missed this: "a portion of bark over 4’ square was detached. Curiously, it wasn’t near the lightning wound! Insects had entered wounds made by climbing spikes and eaten away the cambium. That climber must have dug in his spikes to keep his balance as he cut, with Great Expectations that those little holes couldn’t possibly hurt that great big tree."

That 4' square patch was killed by spikes, and that was the difference in the tree living and dying.

If either of you know an ISA member, see the Oct Arb News to hear about a disease that could easily infect a tree through spike wounds and kill it--and that is not a spurious claim! Prove it, you say. Well that's not easy cuz:

Dead trees tell no tales, unless someone documents the dissection, and who has time for that? So the best reply is, prove spike damage is tolerable by all trees, before advocating or dismissing it. And not all spike wounds are created equal--holes made by big fat climbers are bound to be deeper, and more injurious.

And the energy behind your arguments indicates the doubt in the claim "It really doesn't matter to me because only do removals." What if you just finished killing a tree for Mrs. Gotrocks, and you got just enough to make the rent. There's an all-you-can-eat at the local food trough. She asks you with cash in hand to limb up that next tree for her. You would not, even to make food money, and skip dinner instead?

Tell yourself that lie all you want, but we all know what it is to scrape, and be forced into compromise. It's impossible to imagine you guys skipping food and referring that pruning job to another, instead of clambering up that tree with your irons on.

As Kermit says, it's not easy being green. It's not easy being big, either--I could not work a tree at 190# nearly as well as I can at 170#. I can't imaging 270#, but a lot of big guys do all right without spikes. Using them to prune urban trees is malpractice.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

- when the bark is thick enough to prevent damage to the cambium;

Even this one has fallen to the wayside, Phelogen in the bark can create infection courts.

Has anybody ever seen any long term negative impact from maple production on trees?

The difference with sugar bush work is that the holes are drilled, thus cleaner then a gaff wound, and far apart. The biggest problem with gaff wounds is that they line up along the weakest protection boundary; wall one.

and probably do it a lot faster than the 100 or more open wounds made with a saw....

Why do you always ignore the branch protection zone that I always bring up with this perennial argument? I'll refer back to my wall one argument above also.

Also, if pruning cuts are too close together they will coalesce into one large canker, which is why we should thin lower canopy vs the old raise and gut method that the ignorant workers still use.

why don't you just admit that it's just pure aesthetics and a sales pitch because that's all it is.......your not going to make me believe that a saw cut will close before a 1/2 spike wound....

Treeseer, really? That's the best you can come up with? A tree hit by lightning, "root abused," that had old pruning cuts (nod to rftreeman theory), and was spiked. And this tree is your proof that spikes kill? Weak.

not really, though he had a better one in an oak I worked on after the big ice storm they had 8-9 years ago. The spike wounds had turned into cankers that were merging together.

I think the biggest problem we have with our arguments is that we dumb them down to "it'll kill the tree!" The fact is that is is an additional stressor that the tree is forced to deal with, this is a sap on the stored energy, and a loss of conductive tissue, the wounds are lined up along the vascular pathways. That the wounds are in the most effective xylem is an addition problem.

We wound the tree with the actual pruning, so it has to close those wounds and deal with the loss of photosynthate, if we spike the prune we have additional wounding that must be dealt with while using a compromised vascular system.

Common scientific knowledge once was that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

that was not scientific knowledge, but faith based. Because the people before them believed that the world was flat, it was taken as an article of faith that this was so. In actuality many people who had to work the world on a large scale knew that the world was not flat for hundreds of years before Galileo

i know trees that have been spiked on a five year cycle for decades, and they are still thriving.

this is the difference between anecdotal evidence and science. A few trees stick out in your mind, and are still living. no other factor is taken into concideration, and the fact that the trees are still alive seems to rule out that spiking is not bad.

Once again, we need to stop saying that it will kill trees, but that is not good for their overall health.


We do almost 10k taps a year. We have sugar maples that have had three or four taps a year for forty years. That's got to be a lot more damaging than some spike tracks, yet never hear a bad word about it.

What, are city trees better than country trees? That line right there is one of the reasons i'm not a big ansi fan.

The difference here is that arboriculture and forestry are two different disciplines. With urban trees we often are tending trees as individuals, so that the loss of one tree is a greater loss then if one tree in a large stand dies from a lower standard of treatment.

This is the way I view the use of spikes. Why am I maintaining a given tree in a certain way? I differentiate trim from prune as the former dose not work with the plants natural growth patterns. So if i am trimming a tree in a stand for line of site where I am creating major stresses that will put it's long term viability into question, I will probably gaff it to save the client some money. This is especially true with spring-poles that a climbing line will bend over when placed optimally.

To sum this all up, we are paid to maintain a persons property in the best way possible. If the tree is to stay in a landscape for as long as possible then we need to minimize stress as much as possible. Pruning causes harm to the tree, so we need to do other things that will not exacerbate the necessary harm that the pruning will cause.

 

[TreeClimber57]

And not all spike wounds are created equal--holes made by big fat climbers are bound to be deeper, and more injurious.

And I might add that some are a LOT deeper than they need to be. Properly maintained gaffs do NOT need to be into wood that far to hold properly (now it is possible that on some thick or loose bark that you may have bark peeling away.)

But I have seen guys stomping on their gaffs like they are trying to poke a hole out the other side.. experienced and good climbers who have been using climbers virtually walk up a tree and do not hammer at each step. I think that many wounds are deeper than they need to be simply because the climber hammered the gaff hard.

And I agree with you.. if you can not prove it will NOT injure a tree.. and it is NOT necessary.. then why do it. (other than in accepted exception cases maybe)

 

[TreeClimber57]

I think the biggest problem we have with our arguments is that we dumb them down to "it'll kill the tree!" The fact is that is is an additional stressor that the tree is forced to deal with, this is a sap on the stored energy, and a loss of conductive tissue, the wounds are lined up along the vascular pathways. That the wounds are in the most effective xylem is an addition problem.

Tree..

this is the difference between anecdotal evidence and science. A few trees stick out in your mind, and are still living. no other factor is taken into concideration, and the fact that the trees are still alive seems to rule out that spiking is not bad.

Agreed. It is similar to cigarette smoking.. I know people who have smoked all their lives and have lived well into their eighties.. and there are some who have died at an early age likely because of smoking. Just because some live does not make a good case to say smoking is not bad for us.

Once again, we need to stop saying that it will kill trees, but that is not good for their overall health.

Correct.

To sum this all up, we are paid to maintain a persons property in the best way possible. If the tree is to stay in a landscape for as long as possible then we need to minimize stress as much as possible. Pruning causes harm to the tree, so we need to do other things that will not exacerbate the necessary harm that the pruning will cause.

It is all about caring for the tree the best way we know how, as a doctor would hopefully do for you if you went to a clinic. Would you want the doctor to cut corners simply because it saved him time..? Even if they said well "I have never seen this actually kill anybody" Forget it.. do it the best way we know how with the knowledge we have at our disposal. Not saying that 20 years from now we may do some things differently, but today use what we have as best practices.

 

[Rftreeman]

This is the first one I documented; published in a newspaper and a newsletter...but you remind me of smokers that demand to see proof that smoking kills, then close their eyes to data. o and forgive the ####ensian references--this was a pre=chemo literary effort.

You ever been to fuquay?

A TALE OF TWO OAK TREES

Lightning struck twice in Wake County, NC last year, and two big oak trees bore the brunt. What happened next tells a tale of Scrooge-like assumptions, and how Great Expectations can go awry.

The second oak majestically defined the edge of the historic district in Fuquay-Varina. Two years before, the Capital Trees Program had given it an Historic Tree Award. Scant lawn in full sun covered half the root system, and little of the rest was mulched. The lightning damage seemed just slightly wider than the first, so the arborist started treating the wound as before.

Below some old pruning cuts halfway down, a portion of bark over 4’ square was detached. Curiously, it wasn’t near the lightning wound! Insects had entered wounds made by climbing spikes and eaten away the cambium. That climber must have dug in his spikes to keep his balance as he cut, with Great Expectations that those little holes couldn’t possibly hurt that great big tree. Aggravating this injury was the bare ground underneath. Oaks being ring-porous, the roots that were needed to help repair this damaged side of the tree had too many problems of their own to perform that function.

Added to the lightning wound, this human-made injury put the total dead bark area over one-third of the circumference. Despite insect control, fertilization, and, belatedly, mulch, the prognosis was poor. Little scar tissue grows, and half the crown is pale. The tree’s useful years were over, clearly due to the use of climbing spikes and root abuse.

Lightning may someday inflict a Twist-ed scar on your trees, but you can keep storms, disease and insects from picking your urban forest’s pocket. A healthy root environment below organic groundcover costs less than a cup of gruel. The tree provides it for free when it sheds its leaves. That, and lack of damage above the ground, can keep your trees growing great. Lightning may scare the ####ens out of you, but it’s nothing to lose all your trees over."

I guess the fact that they were struck by lightning plus root problems had nothing to do with it huh...and insects are like thieves, if they want in they're gonna get in......

 

[Rftreeman]

Dude, you need to change your handle to Grendel! :angry2:

In the red oak I looked at, root abuse was a factor. The big dif tween city and row trees is...root abuse. row trees don't get the abuse that urban trees do, so they can manage spike wounds better.

Plus I think you missed this: "a portion of bark over 4’ square was detached. Curiously, it wasn’t near the lightning wound! Insects had entered wounds made by climbing spikes and eaten away the cambium. That climber must have dug in his spikes to keep his balance as he cut, with Great Expectations that those little holes couldn’t possibly hurt that great big tree."

That 4' square patch was killed by spikes, and that was the difference in the tree living and dying.

If either of you know an ISA member, see the Oct Arb News to hear about a disease that could easily infect a tree through spike wounds and kill it--and that is not a spurious claim! Prove it, you say. Well that's not easy cuz:

Dead trees tell no tales, unless someone documents the dissection, and who has time for that? So the best reply is, prove spike damage is tolerable by all trees, before advocating or dismissing it. And not all spike wounds are created equal--holes made by big fat climbers are bound to be deeper, and more injurious.

And the energy behind your arguments indicates the doubt in the claim "It really doesn't matter to me because only do removals." What if you just finished killing a tree for Mrs. Gotrocks, and you got just enough to make the rent. There's an all-you-can-eat at the local food trough. She asks you with cash in hand to limb up that next tree for her. You would not, even to make food money, and skip dinner instead?

Tell yourself that lie all you want, but we all know what it is to scrape, and be forced into compromise. It's impossible to imagine you guys skipping food and referring that pruning job to another, instead of clambering up that tree with your irons on.

As Kermit says, it's not easy being green. It's not easy being big, either--I could not work a tree at 190# nearly as well as I can at 170#. I can't imaging 270#, but a lot of big guys do all right without spikes. Using them to prune urban trees is malpractice.

oh, ok as long as I'm in the country it's ok there, hell I'll start doing trim jobs in the country, hell I might even head due east......

 

[lxt]

I see all sides here!!

when I did ROW work for the utility we spiked everything & I was young then!!! those trees I have personnaly trimmed on the next trim cycle were doing fine!!!! as a matter of fact certain species had sprouts that came outta the spike holes, silver maples, cherries, locusts & even red oaks!!

I base it like this.....My opinion only!!! If I cant "safely" do the tree without hooks.....Im using hooks!!!! if I can do it without, I will. actually after the knee surgery I had several years ago...I prefer no hooks!

this topic can go on forever........as I have said before: there is no greater authority than the person who is up there in the tree!!!



LXT.............

 

[beowulf343]

"Climbing spurs shall not be used when climbing or pruning trees.

Exceptions:
- in remote or rural utility rights-of-way."

In the red oak I looked at, root abuse was a factor. The big dif tween city and row trees is...root abuse. row trees don't get the abuse that urban trees do, so they can manage spike wounds better.

The difference here is that arboriculture and forestry are two different disciplines. With urban trees we often are tending trees as individuals, so that the loss of one tree is a greater loss then if one tree in a large stand dies from a lower standard of treatment.

You guys are purposely trying to muddy the waters here. That line is not talking about the difference between arboriculture and forestry. It's not talking about the difference between row trees and urban trees. It's not talking about the difference between mrs. homeowner's tree in her front yard and the trees along a transmission line running over the catskill mountains.

I'm taking that line at face value. It's talking about the difference between row trees in urban areas and row trees in rural areas. (And treeseer, i don't know why you don't seem to understand row in urban areas, there is such a thing. You just assumed "city trees" by me meant non row.) To me that line means that trimming a line in the middle of nowhere is fine with spikes, but move that line and the trees to a city setting and spikes are a no no. I'm sure you are thinking it's a simplistic view, but i'm a simplistic guy. So you both are saying that trees can handle spikes, but because of other stress factors trees in an urban area endure, that is the reason it shouldn't be done to the city trees. That is the biggest load i've ever heard you guys try to come up with to defend your "bible."

The way that line reads to me, if i were to go back to a skidder bucket crew, ansi would stand behind every tree i spike, simply because they were spiked in a rural row.

Btw, i also like the fact you assume i'm not an isa member. What, you think i'm too much of knuckle dragger to belong to your little club?

And the energy behind your arguments indicates the doubt in the claim "It really doesn't matter to me because only do removals." What if you just finished killing a tree for Mrs. Gotrocks, and you got just enough to make the rent. There's an all-you-can-eat at the local food trough. She asks you with cash in hand to limb up that next tree for her. You would not, even to make food money, and skip dinner instead?

Tell yourself that lie all you want, but we all know what it is to scrape, and be forced into compromise. It's impossible to imagine you guys skipping food and referring that pruning job to another, instead of clambering up that tree with your irons on.

I don't know whether to be insulted by this or not.lol Oddly enough, ever since i've been doing removals, i've been making enough money that this scenario hasn't come up. You want honesty from me in that situation? Ok, i've just killed mrs. gotrock's tree and made $1k. Am i really interested in $20 to do a little trim? Not really, but maybe i am feeling hungry and the local slop trough doesn't take hundred dollar bills. So i do the trim, without spikes. (Yes, i can climb spikeless, it's another skill like any other so practice it regularly, and even on removals knowing how to footlock is handy.) My difference is, i'm honest enough to admit that i climbed it spikeless for aesthetic reasons, a spike trail is never pretty. I don't give a rat's ass about doing it for the health of the tree.
This is what i love, you assume that anyone arguing with you about the effect of spikes on trees is a hardcore spiker that can't climb without them. That is not always the case, i'm very proficient even without them, simply because more homeowners are jumping on the "green" bandwagon and they read online that spiking is bad. It's a skill that modern treemen have really been forced to learn simply to compete in the market. I'm simply stating that your arguments have not convinced me that spiking is the tree armageddon so many believe it to be. Especially when i hear you guys saying that there is no excuse for spiking some trees but they can be spike if moved to a different location.

As Kermit says, it's not easy being green. It's not easy being big, either--I could not work a tree at 190# nearly as well as I can at 170#. I can't imaging 270#, but a lot of big guys do all right without spikes.

Stereotyping, really?

 

[rebelman]

Thanks 4 the replies. I feel it is fraudulent or unethical 2 claim 2 be a "legitimate" company or "arborist" and still do spike climbing on residential trims. And lxt those sprouts cause many fatalities and brown outs I figure. I can't argue when elctricity is involved. but municipal and residential work should be compliant with ANSI pruning standard. I think Lakebound has the best point. Seer rocks.

 

[Rftreeman]

You guys are purposely trying to muddy the waters here. That line is not talking about the difference between arboriculture and forestry. It's not talking about the difference between row trees and urban trees. It's not talking about the difference between mrs. homeowner's tree in her front yard and the trees along a transmission line running over the catskill mountains.

I'm taking that line at face value. It's talking about the difference between row trees in urban areas and row trees in rural areas. (And treeseer, i don't know why you don't seem to understand row in urban areas, there is such a thing. You just assumed "city trees" by me meant non row.) To me that line means that trimming a line in the middle of nowhere is fine with spikes, but move that line and the trees to a city setting and spikes are a no no. I'm sure you are thinking it's a simplistic view, but i'm a simplistic guy. So you both are saying that trees can handle spikes, but because of other stress factors trees in an urban area endure, that is the reason it shouldn't be done to the city trees. That is the biggest load i've ever heard you guys try to come up with to defend your "bible."

The way that line reads to me, if i were to go back to a skidder bucket crew, ansi would stand behind every tree i spike, simply because they were spiked in a rural row.

Btw, i also like the fact you assume i'm not an isa member. What, you think i'm too much of knuckle dragger to belong to your little club?



I don't know whether to be insulted by this or not.lol Oddly enough, ever since i've been doing removals, i've been making enough money that this scenario hasn't come up. You want honesty from me in that situation? Ok, i've just killed mrs. gotrock's tree and made $1k. Am i really interested in $20 to do a little trim? Not really, but maybe i am feeling hungry and the local slop trough doesn't take hundred dollar bills. So i do the trim, without spikes. (Yes, i can climb spikeless, it's another skill like any other so practice it regularly, and even on removals knowing how to footlock is handy.) My difference is, i'm honest enough to admit that i climbed it spikeless for aesthetic reasons, a spike trail is never pretty. I don't give a rat's ass about doing it for the health of the tree.
This is what i love, you assume that anyone arguing with you about the effect of spikes on trees is a hardcore spiker that can't climb without them. That is not always the case, i'm very proficient even without them, simply because more homeowners are jumping on the "green" bandwagon and they read online that spiking is bad. It's a skill that modern treemen have really been forced to learn simply to compete in the market. I'm simply stating that your arguments have not convinced me that spiking is the tree armageddon so many believe it to be. Especially when i hear you guys saying that there is no excuse for spiking some trees but they can be spike if moved to a different location.



Stereotyping, really?

I can't add any yet so here it is.....REP REP REP...............somebody give that man his well deserved number 8 nova.....

 

[treeseer]

No worries beo;

... i'm honest enough to admit that i climbed it spikeless for aesthetic reasons, a spike trail is never pretty. I don't give a rat's ass about doing it for the health of the tree....your arguments have not convinced me that spiking is the tree armageddon so many believe it to be.

Good post; I agree this argument is not our armageddon--overraising, root abuse, removals due to perceived "defects" that are actually strengths, all these are much more critical.

We don't agree about spikes and health--rat's what?? you mean we cannot use a synonym for richard but...We agree on too much more to argue about it . I think Sanborn put it best; worth a second look. That school deal is working out well for him!

 

[Rftreeman]

all this just makes me want to go spike some trees and post pictures...........

 

[sgreanbeans]

hmmmmm, After reading all this I have come to a conclusion!
In this industry there are Arborist, Hacks and Trolls. I will now add a new one......Professional Hack. ProHack for short
They should start their own "club". Then they can teach the up and comer ProHack the ways of the SITH.

Look, u guys know darn well its not good for trees,, yet you still do it because you admit you don't care about the health of the tree, that's fine, we understand, but don't argue the point of whether or not it is good , that is ridicules, and you know this! I was taught with out them, hardly ever used them, HATED them, was told by my elder that when I see someone climbing with them, "they couldn't grasp foot locking or they are lazy" period.
There are times that it is a necessary evil, but that does not make it ok, just necessary. I have never gaffed a prune, only a removal, and as soon as I was in the canopy, down they went. Soon after I quite using them altogether. Yall talk about the "club". Really!! Listen to yourself, that is what is wrong, when people try to do things right, they become the "establishment". Who do you think started the "club"? and why!

 

[lxt]

Thanks 4 the replies. I feel it is fraudulent or unethical 2 claim 2 be a "legitimate" company or "arborist" and still do spike climbing on residential trims. And lxt those sprouts cause many fatalities and brown outs I figure. I can't argue when elctricity is involved. but municipal and residential work should be compliant with ANSI pruning standard. I think Lakebound has the best point. Seer rocks.

I couldnt rep you beowulf....sorry! very good post, rebelman......those "sprouts" epicormic shoots, suckers, or whatever to the best of my knowledge have not caused many fatalities!!!!! as for brown outs Im thinking you mean "black outs?"

again this topic can go on forever, I personally dont spike if its not a removal, however........ safety first!! I have to agree though on one point, I have seen trees repeatedly spiked on a 3yr cycle (trees I have spiked 15+ years ago) they`re still growing & are still being trimmed to this day!!! mind you this is for utility work, so the theory "spikes kill" is wrong!

However, if you`re climbing a diseased tree (removal) & then spike the same specie on the other side of town (non-removal) without cleaning the spikes.....well thats a different story! thats WRONG!!!




LXT.................