Stormproofing Trees

[Guy Meilleur]

Boots that are waterproofed can leak.

Houses that are weatherproofed can be damaged by weather.

Systems that are idiot-proof can still be done in by idiots.

Trees that are "storm-proofed" can get damaged by a category 5 storm, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to use the term "storm-proofed" or even "hurricane-proof". There is no absolute guarantee expressed or implied in using "-proof".

An academic--an extension urban forester-- was assigned the topic "How to Stormproof Trees" at a workshop a while ago. Spent an hour talking about trees that failed, then had an outside demo of a removal. Made people fearful and fatalistic about tree defects--I'm so glad he retired!

Totally missed the point. Do we need to be so paranoid about liability or "misleading" that we can't call a tree "stormproofed"?

 

[Stumper]

Too much is implied by "proof". I much prefer to talk about "hazard reduction" and have a short discourse about how the likelyhood of falure can be greatly reduced but never completely eliminated. People understand for the most part.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by RockyJSquirrel
'Storm-proof' insinuates virtually complete resistence to storms.

** OK then, how about "storm-resistant"? the mini-discourse about risk being omnipresent does have to happen, as Stumper said. I use "risk" instead of "hazard" anymore, after muni lawyers and other overreactive types removed some very low-hazard trees. the h word just called for elimination to them.

It's like using PHC in place of IPM; the words we use focus people's minds on the right or wrong thing, depending...

 

[Treeman14]

If I buy waterproof boots, I expect them to NOT leak. If I weatherproof my house, I expect it to be impervious to the elements. If my boots leak, I would demand a refund or other compensation from the seller. So, if someone claims they can hurricane-proof my trees, I expect them to withstand a hurricane. Clearly, this is a ludicrous claim.

Guy, maybe YOU missed the point of that workshop. Perhaps the forester was trying to show that trees CAN'T be made strom-proof.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

If you walk up to your waist in water with water proof boots on...

But I too hate the idea of risk reduction relating to storms. I can see (sorta) crown reductions for snow/ice loadings. This though gets one into the recurring cycle of reduction. Is it really much different then topping?

Would true pollarding (3 year cycles?) be of bennefit to young trees in these areas that get cyclical percipitation damamge?

At least up here most of this related damamge is from loads on decayed segemnts in old large pruning wounds. Mostly topping and raising of large stem/branch unions.

 

[ORclimber]

Originally posted by Guy Meilleur
Do we need to be so paranoid about liability or "misleading" that we can't call a tree "stormproofed"?

In a society that locks it's doors and sleeps with 44's under the pillow in fear of the bad guys(sorry just watched Bowling for Columbine). The only stormproof tree has been removed and had its stump ground.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Re: Re: Stormproofing Trees

Originally posted by ORclimber
In a society that locks it's doors and sleeps with 44's under the pillow in fear of the bad guys(sorry just watched Bowling for Columbine). The only stormproof tree has been removed and had its stump ground.

I'd say the stump was stormproof - perfectly safe to leave it!

 

[Menchhofer]

I would never use the term "storm -proof" simply because of the liability involved. Even though you believe there is no absolute guarantee implied, the average person will surely interpret it as such.

In a great number of cases, tree defects should be labeled dangerous as they definitely are.

Perhaps the term "more resistant" is appropriate, but not eliminated.

And although I see the logic in your comparisions, I do not think it would apply to trees. Good try though.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by John Paul Sanborn
But I too hate the idea of risk reduction relating to storms. I can see (sorta) crown reductions for snow/ice loadings.
** Don't forget rain and wind, sleet and fruit and...

This though gets one into the recurring cycle of reduction.
**Sometimes, yes, but cycles are far enough apart for tree owner to be happy with. If the alternatives are high risk or removal, where is the problem with reduction?

Is it really much different then topping?
** Absolutely. Reduction of sprawling branches does not need frequent recurrence. It only needs the right tools, like a light, telescoping polesaw to make those small-diameter cuts, and basic skills. Often one time does it, usually at least 3-5 years before endweight gets too risky again.

I've run into many clients lately whose trees I pruned before our big ice storm. I did not hear from them in december because their trees were, strictly speaking, previously stormproofed by reduction and thinning.

But I hear the reactions and will say they're "storm-resistant" from now on. And I have hundreds of ready references for potential clients who are leery of reduction. Some fear the tree'll get addicted to the process, but hearing from tree owners who had it done 10 years ago and not since helps them buy in.

The skeptics can see:Eye: for themselves, if they're willing to go out and look.