Topping => Lost Value

[treeseer]

I got this as a pm but there's nothing personal in it so I made it a post:

"I can find plenty of information on why topping is bad and against proper tree care standards (ANSI, ISA etc).
What I can't find is an authoritative source that states topped trees are a detriment to property values. (Trees that are beyond any type of restoration pruning, everything gone down to 4 to 6 inch cuts).
I have a situation where the involved parties agree that what was done (the topping) was wrong, but can't agree on the fact that the tree is a detriment/hazard and should be removed.
I guess what I am looking for is a source to point to that says according to professional standards, the tree should be removed.
Any ideas?"

This can be done by using a risk assessment form or an appraisal form. The species, previous condition, location and extent of injuries would have to be closely documented to yield a prognosis, an educated guess on the future of the tree.

I cannot say that all trees cut back to 4-6" stubs are total losses. Maybe most of them are. If someone wants to post pics and details, then the assessment can begin. But bear in mind that what is a detriment is in the eye of the beholder/owner. If there is no target and you love bugs that eat rotten wood, these trees may be assets. Elsewhere they may be liabilities. It depends.

 

[begleytree]

I have seen trees topped here that would add value. nasty spraggly thing before, but 4 years after topping they are a beautifuly shaped tree. then I've seen others.... non-local outfit here went through 2 years ago in an apt complex and pretty much made straight poles out of 15 nice pin oaks. now they look like hell. tall poles with whippy watersprouts from the ground to the top... they'll prob never be the same. they are 18-20" dbh. definately hurt the property value I'm sure. didnt help they also volcano mulched 20 nice pine trees (12"dbh) about 3-4' (yep, feet) deep. they are all dead now too...
too bad they brought some big time outfit down out of columbus to do their work... I never got a call, prob some property management contract..
-Ralph

 

[ATH]

...............But bear in mind that what is a detriment is in the eye of the beholder/owner. If there is no target and you love bugs that eat rotten wood, these trees may be assets. Elsewhere they may be liabilities. It depends.

Couldn't the same be said for any property asset? I'd wager to think that most of us here would agree that a 36" healthy bur oak in the center of a 1/2 acre front yard is fairly valuable, right?

I happen to know that my mother-in-law would just see a bunch of leaves that need raked, and therefore thinks it should be removed.

I don't have appraisal guides, but I know in any appraisals, value is always in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't give 25 cents for a mint condition Babe Ruth rookie card (except for the fact that I knew I could sell it for more to somebody who cares). Does that mean that card is only worth 25 cents?

As for the topped trees. They don't pose a danger today, but what danger was created down the road? If I were looking at buying the property, I'd look at them as a detrement (subtract cost of removal from cost of property) rather than an asset. I do not claim to know how they "should" be appraised.

Interesting discussion. I'll look forward to seeing what others have to say.

 

[treevet]

It s common knowledge that topping trees esp internodal cuts is an archaic practice prob based on homeowners long ago wanting to emulate the balled trees created under power lines. There are exceptions to every rule (except maybe the rule that there are exceptions to every rule-ha ha). Three years ago I was called to a home w the biggest burr oak in ohio down the street from my house. I had been involved w this for approx 10 years. Prior to that another svc had put in a cable system w 1/4 in cable (what a joke the tree is multi leadered approx 135 feet tall w approx l2-14 ft dbh and 500 plus years old (increment boring). The owner could not replace the system after spending so much on cables. One day it was hit w a downshear snapping a cable and dropping a leader on the house that a 20 ton crane could not budge and just blew black smoke and it was right next to it. I brought in another crane wapprox 180 feet of stick approx and it was a 45 ton. We topped the tree w me boomed up into the top, setting a choker coming down on a cl line and cutting the canopy virtually in half. I for got to add there was another two leaders w fractures twds the house. We did not snap a twig on the remaining laterals due to the crane just booming straight up w massive leaders while I was bucked in at the cuts. The tree is lush and full 3 years later. I did not want any part of this dangerous job unless I got 10,500$ and told them and they did not even hesitate. This will be followed up w sprouts sort of pollarded when nec. Decay monitered. I topped it , I am proud I did it and most other co.s in this area if they could even handle such a job would have removed this tree. The house has been rebuilt on that side w an addition and they are happy as can be. I hung a big rope swing on one of the 3 ft dia lateral branches. Yesterday I spent the day topping a big ugly ch elm that self destructed in the ice storm we just had . It looks way better that it did before it fell apart. Sprouts and decay will be monitered and it, being still 60 feet tall w a 50 ft spread and 3 ft dia trunk adds immeasurable value instead of nakedness to the front of the 600 000 house from the l930 s. Al Shigo would kill me if he heard this kind of talk. Trees should die w dignity.

 

[treeseer]

It s common knowledge that topping trees esp internodal cuts is an archaic practice ... This will be followed up w sprouts sort of pollarded when nec. Decay monitered. I topped it , I am proud I did it ... Trees should die w dignity.

Fascinating story, but...if you cut to nodes, not internodes, at locations determined by your knowledge of the tree, and you only cut what was needed to help the tree live longer, it sounds like you reduced it. Topping is done to predetermined heights, not based on the tree but on the people involved.

As you know, appearances can be deceiving. Just because there is lush new growth does NOT mean the tree is in good condition. It'd be interesting to hear how you are monitoring decay and codoms and what you are doing based on your measurements.

Pictures would be excellent, exp before they leaf out. Attached is one approach to reducing storm-damaged trees, which looked like Topping to some when it was done.

 

[Timberhauler]

I have completely quit topping trees all together...Around here,utility companies clear their power lines..I did a reduction once where it was a very big canopy,and most of what I cut out was dead,but this is about the only exception..The biggest issue for me is the liability..I don't want to be blammed for killing a tree.

 

[Mike Barcaskey]

thanks Guy, I'll get some pics up today

 

[treevet]

Treeseer, I wrote a long post earlier today and it never showed up after I sent it. Thetree has minimal stem decay but it will prob be ckd w a boring to maintain the 30% commonly to be recognized as the threshold and if it passes this point it will be read it s last rites. As for decay around the cut backs it will be monitored when sprouts and laterals are limited as I see fit to keep in bounds. Codoms have been addressed w 3/8" cables. The tree was very healthy prior to the failure as bur oaks , especially this genetically superior specimen have handled water stress better than most around here. I ve seen many instances where poor cables are prob worse than no cables as when the break happens the momentum goes beyond what the wind would give. Also prob years of cable would limit production of reaction wood rendering it even more vulnerable. I got to learn to send pictures and get in the ball game w you guys.

 

[treeseer]

ckd w a boring to maintain the 30% commonly to be recognized as the threshold and if it passes this point it will be read it s last rites.

Yeah those stiff cables can make what Andy Detter called a "karate effect" at the last TCI. German standards are going strongly toward dynamic sistems.

Lots of questions but first this one. do you mean 30% shell thickness? That "commonly' stuff is dangerous-- too many variables to use hard and fast nuimbers. I think boring and coring are last resorts.

"Trunk. If there is a hole in the trunk or root collar, you can gain information about that cavity by probing with a tool such as a screwdriver or a tile probe, a long, narrow fiberglass rod with a “T” handle. A ruler or yardstick will give you some idea how extensive the cavity is. If the trunk sounds very hollow but there is no soft spot or opening to probe and measure, then more advanced equipment may be used to determine how much sound wood is in the stem. Drilling and coring can measure the sound wood in one small area, so many holes must be made to get a picture of the whole tree. Drilling and coring invade healthy tissue, potentially spreading decay and decreasing stability. Practicing on fallen trees can provide valuable experience in the use of these methods.
Devices using radar and sound waves are not as invasive, but they cost a lot more. Trunks can also be tested by pulling on the tree, using the Statics Integrated Method. All of these methods and devices require experience to interpret the results well enough to communicate the risk to the tree owner. Deciding how closely to inspect a tree is always a professional judgment, different for each assignment and each tree. Cavities over two-thirds of the diameter are sometimes considered “hazardous” and a reason for removal, but with close monitoring and care, trees with cavities over 80% of the diameter have been managed for many years." (13 in one case)

That's a sample out of 3000 words on this:

 

[treevet]

Loads of great advice there. Bottom line, guy making decision, as you and I it appears need years of experience in conjunction w volumes of researched written in formation and hands on seminars to feel competent when you get to the point you are constantly making the life or death decision on beloved trees.You can t hand the ball off, you can t call your dad and you have to live w yourself afterwards. You got to be ready. I am ready, I ve earned it.

 

[treeseer]

you are constantly making the life or death decision on beloved trees.You can t hand the ball off, you can t call your dad and you have to live w yourself afterwards. You got to be ready. I am ready, I ve earned it.

I'm not ready to decide what should be done with high risk trees I do not own--it's up to the owner. You disagree with this?

"A certain level of liability is unavoidable no matter what we do or not do, but there are steps that can limit our own personal and professional liability when assessing tree risk. First, define your assignment so that you and the owner understand the level of detail that you will be going to, and what form the written report will take. Second, state your limitations in a written “disclaimer”. Unless you have a big “S” on your chest, you cannot see inside the tree or under the tree. You cannot foresee what storms will be testing the tree’s strength, so you cannot guarantee its safety for a week or even for a day. Finally, make it clear that risk is always present, and it is the owners of the tree who are responsible for the decisions affecting the tree."

 

[ATH]

treevet and treeseer,
regarding treatment of storm damaged trees...isn't that a different (but maybe slightly related) question? In that case, a natural event did the damage. An arborist heading the tree back to a node is simply doing what you can with the hand nature dealt you. If somebody wanted to insure the value of their trees (is that even possible???), then we would still ask the question about lost value in the storm, but would not be looking to assign liability for that lost value. As I understand the original question it is referring to taking an otherwise "healthy" tree and topping it 'because it oughta be topped'.

Is there documented justification to specifically say a topped tree appraises differently than an otherwise equal tree that has not been topped?

 

[PUclimber]

There is actually a guide to go by when estimating the value of a tree. You have to take into consideration the heighth dbh health of tree and you rate things in it such as what does it bring to the landscape or aesthetics of the landscape as far as is it close to the house or other structure to reduce heat in summer conditions etc. I'll have to see if i can't dig that paper up and scan it on to the computer.

 

[treevet]

Yea I m on board w cya "cover your a s". Some operative words are worse case senario and again target (most valuable being people s lives). A small girl was killed by a white pine limb here in ice storm last week. Yes the ultimate decider is the owner/s but we are the initial deciders and w me and prob you I am usually the only initial decider w est clients. The subject wandered away from unprofessionally topped trees and their propertyvalue and intrinsic value into decay and ultimately risk assessment but these go hand in hand w top jobs causing dead roots and decay or decay causing people to top trees. I m always leaning twds leaving a tree bcs I love trees evidenced by all the self educating I have done. Yes it leaves us vulnerable to law suit but that is the nature of the beast and prob having client sign a disclaimer and also admit to making the decision prob wouldn t stand up in a law suit. I guess extremely expensive insurance is the answer but I am sometimes feeling insurance stressed now.Maybe no insurance would protect against loss of life.

 

[treevet]

treevet and treeseer,
regarding treatment of storm damaged trees...isn't that a different (but maybe slightly related) question? In that case, a natural event did the damage. An arborist heading the tree back to a node is simply doing what you can with the hand nature dealt you. If somebody wanted to insure the value of their trees (is that even possible???), then we would still ask the question about lost value in the storm, but would not be looking to assign liability for that lost value. As I understand the original question it is referring to taking an otherwise "healthy" tree and topping it 'because it oughta be topped'.

Is there documented justification to specifically say a topped tree appraises differently than an otherwise equal tree that has not been topped?

I thought, ATH, that a topped tree as opposed to no tree was equal or greater value to property was in my head. Yes there prob is documentation showinga topped tree w less value than a non topped tree (but maybe not less than no tree at all) bcs tree appraisal starts w a healthy tree value and is lessened by many things such as location, health, and ,in topped scenario, by topped or drop crotched or reduced, etc., condition (condition being less than a flowing branched natural tree instead of an abbreviated unnatural thing). Trees can be as much as 20%of prop value but so far as insuring them I ve not witnessed this. Losses based on pro appraisal can be written off on income tax. Think audit if you get out of bounds tho.

 

[treeseer]

ATH yes heading damaged trees is very different from topping trees, but sometimes the resultant lowering of condition value can work out the same. If the amount of decay, and structure, and vitality are.And yes there are a dozen or more of appraisals where topped trees had less value in my files, and hundreds if not thousands that others have done.

PU no offense to your school but i sure hope they teach you about appraisal in your senior year. Sophomores at NCSU hear about it. plenty in the archives on this.

treevet, yes disclaimers do cya to a great degree. When you say "we are the initial deciders and w me and prob you I am usually the only initial decider w est clients." I hear you saying that we decide condition and probability of tree failure, yes. Errors and Omissions insurance CAN help I've heard; i've had it for years but no claims, knock on predigested xylem.:help:

Re self educating, that can be very good, but beter yet to hear other folks' views. Attached is Pink Floyd's view on schools. :hmm3grin2orange:

Did you ever hear OH dudes Jim Chatfield or Alan Siewert? ASCA is a great resource for teaching, and ISA has diagnosis workshops too--next one I'm doing is Feb 24 in Little Rock, y'all come. http://www.isasouthern.org/Web File/Registration/ISA CONF 2007A.pdf