topping

[clearance]

I just want to say one thing bout topping for views, and im sure others would have plenty to say about it and none of which would be very constructive.

Why cant people get off their ass and walk the ten steps or what ever it takes to see the view. I dont understand the need to see all the view from your kitchen window!

Impossible, the houses are on top of a hill/cliff, the only way you could get the same view I made is to walk over 1000', down then up again, into the bush, and then you would have to fall a clearing. Frash, these people have no desire to sell, when they bought the property it had been clearcut, many years later, trees grew high enough to ruin thier view. But, yeah, usually Mister Green is the reason. So Jim in NZ, do you do what the customer wants or do you tell them what to do, or not? And then what if they tell you "we want you to top these trees, we don't care" Do you do it, or do you leave it for someone else?

 

[matty f]

The kinda topping ,as so well shown in Ekka's picture...or any realy, might as well fell the tree...what the hell is the point! who the f2ck would want to look at that,if its a hedge or the tree was pollarded or maybe its a last chance to encourage some regrowth on a badly decayed or dieing tree is the only time i would then maybe consider topping.
If you want a view fell the tree,plant somthing that dont grow so big so some poor fella does'nt have to work on some bushy twice as thick and high regrowth in 5 years time ,only for his weak anchore point to break and end up in hospital or dead.

 

[squisher]

Well said Matty f. If the time was spent to educate the customer a little the hack job could've turned into a removal and re-plant job and in the long run have worked out much better for arborist and customer. Re-planted with an apropriate tree for the sight.

 

[clearance]

If you want a view fell the tree,plant somthing that dont grow so big so some poor fella does'nt have to work on some bushy twice as thick and high regrowth in 5 years time ,only for his weak anchore point to break and end up in hospital or dead.

Why would someone tie into a weak anchor point, unless they were a spurless fanatic, now its gone beyond the usual "topping is bad for trees" to some poor fella being hurt or killed, give it up.

 

[matty f]

You go and climb the regrowth on your spurs then,if the tree's over property you gotta have anchore points,roping point's to cut off all that dodgey crap you have caused by your topping...or do you only work in forrests and not have to deal with commercial tree work mutilations?? have you ever had to call an ambulance whilst one of your team is on the floor all broken due to the only anchore point he could obtain was regrowth that looked safe was not.

 

[clearance]

You go and climb the regrowth on your spurs then,if the tree's over property you gotta have anchore points,roping point's to cut off all that dodgey crap you have caused by your topping...or do you only work in forrests and not have to deal with commercial tree work mutilations?? have you ever had to call an ambulance whilst one of your team is on the floor all broken due to the only anchore point he could obtain was regrowth that looked safe was not.

Matty, I usually climb in the forest, this was a residential job, I am also a utilty arborist, have done commercial treework. Generally speaking, the regrowth gets cut off right where it was topped before. I don't climb regrowth unless its good, and I never tie into anything I'm unsure of. Anchor points to me are my spurs and flipline, not a rope tied to something way above my head, tied into something I can't take a good look at. When I tie in, it is to rappel down, I can touch the point I tie into, right in front of me. I have cut down many previuosly topped trees, most of them by powerlines, I have the experience and training to do it safely. If its dodgey, then I suggest tying into some other tree, using a bucket or crane, using spurs, anything but risking your life over a tree.

 

[Ekka]

Oh it always brings spirited debate the ole topping issue.

Like I said a few posts back we cut down trees in 3 different properties so the guy at the top of the hill could get a view, that view put BIG BUCKS on his property.

Now you might argue that we cut down perfectly healthy trees, and topping is better as it leaves something and all that sort of stuff.

But removal and appropriate replanting is a better option and permanent solution.

However, sometimes you cant do that as the person down the hill wants the bottom half of the tree left. Now that gets sticky.

I have stood between 2 neighbours going hammer and tongs over this issue, the guy at the top of the hill is like King of the Castle and their attitude is "it's only a stupid tree, and an obsticle to this view I paid for". The people beneath are tree lovers and dont want to see his house. There's been covert poisoning ops by neibs etc ... can get really ugly.

Some trees dont lend themselves to drop crotching for reduction due to their form. If a compromise is reached and a topping is given the go ahead by the lower neighbour then would you do it?

 

[xtremetrees]

I agree with matty f in the spiking the topping post and i appreciate his comments this help me keep a clear mind the spikeless removals and throwballing dead trees.

Ive climbed production on retopping view cuts and my friend its all dead wood.
Sure increase their property value and spike away climber. Charge them double for violating your own ethics. Tell them so.

I would opt for reducing trees and throwing others to give them a view with no spikes of course.

 

[matty f]

Some trees dont lend themselves to drop crotching for reduction due to their form. If a compromise is reached and a topping is given the go ahead by the lower neighbour then would you do it?

yeah why not and i do after a highly expensive quote,but not before we have discussed the issue of the pruning cycle that it will need every three years as it is mechanicaly now ruined instead of felling it and saving money in the long run......
looked at two jobs this week where topping was wanted, both have been talked in to felling and replant's

 

[clearance]

Of course its easier to just fall it all, but on steep ground you have to think about slope stability. Where I commited this hienus crime there is a healthy understory of cedar and hemlocks coming up, in 10 or so years they can be topped as well. Matty, in your post of 11:36 am, you say you would only top to encourage regrowth on a badly damaged or dying tree. In your post from 3:14 pm you say that you will top after a highly expensive quote. So, I'm sure you see why I now call BS on you and any "ethics", too funny, really, and in your own words.

 

[matty f]

Of course its easier to just fall it all, but on steep ground you have to think about slope stability. Where I commited this hienus crime there is a healthy understory of cedar and hemlocks coming up, in 10 or so years they can be topped as well. Matty, in your post of 11:36 am, you say you would only top to encourage regrowth on a badly damaged or dying tree. In your post from 3:14 pm you say that you will top after a highly expensive quote. So, I'm sure you see why I now call BS on you and any "ethics", too funny, really, and in your own words.

I never said i would not do it though did I.
Its part of tree work but the customer now needs to know the tree needs a pruning regime, but in most cases there are other options like felling and replanting or raising and thinning,light reductions.
All i am trying to say is topping is a very shorted sighted solution with worse repercussions.
I would love to see a 20% reduction you have done but i bet you never have ,so put your spikes on and top away its obviously the easyest option and the next time Ive tipped roped the top out of a sh1tty topped but forgotten tree,when i snatch the last roping down limb and it snaps off from the crappy topping wound ill remind my self to get a crane or bucket for all these messed up trees i work on or maybe just think off the fool who probably put his spikes on and happily topped away to make this crappy mess and hope hes still not in business.

 

[Ekka]

What about if the tree to be topped was going to have more than 50% of it's canopy/foliage cut of. A big stub stump sitting in mid air say 16" dia with a few branches beneath.

Yes, like a gum tree.

??? chances could be 50/50 it dies too or perhaps dies after a few good whackings?

Hey, I aint making this up, it's common.

 

[squisher]

Oh I love a good argument. There is nothing wrong with turning down work if it goes against your morals because if the customer really wants to butcher their trees then there is always someone else out there who will do it. So for me I won't do jobs that are wrong but then again I'm not hungry and chasing every job that comes along.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Out of interest, what was the lateral % dia as compared to main branch? Did you do any where the 1/3 rule was broken to like 1/5 etc ... coz that may still be better than going to collar??? Just interested.

My feeling is that it is too species/specemine dependant to get a general rule here. Part of where the art/craft comes out ahead for the science.

Also, why do you think the same size wound back at the trunk didn't seal over compared to the reduction cut to a lateral?

Proximity to dynamic mass would be by assumtion

So, is this the way you begin a pollard?

Ummmm, .....no. That would be a partial removal

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Yea thats a good question Ekka, so how far should/can you head back a lateral branch before it should be removed?

Once again, no general rule. It depends on pruning cycles, the light exposuer that branch gets, overall vitality of the tree, amount of canopy loss...

As for the last, I will leave as much "good wood" on the tree as possiple. Guy and I had "discussions" on this when i was working for him after the ice storms. I was leaving some stups with torn bark so as to leave as much green bark on the branch. This is because the younger bark is still dynamic and sprouts up "better".

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

And then what if they tell you "we want you to top these trees, we don't care" Do you do it, or do you leave it for someone else?

For me, if true vista pruning cannot achieve the clients goals, I will offer what I call line of sight work. We find the areas where they most often sit and open up views for these seating/work areas.

This can include raising, gutting, reducing and even topping some trees.

we then use the slash to form "false wattles" the help reduce slope erosion.

We do the coarse work getting the sight lines and limts cleared than with a radio on the climber and a person at the view points to refine the LOS.

viewman- skin that branch under your left foot
climber This one? (Shakes branch)
viewman No, the one under it, heading to the north

 

[Grizzly]

Oh it always brings spirited debate the ole topping issue.

Like I said a few posts back we cut down trees in 3 different properties so the guy at the top of the hill could get a view, that view put BIG BUCKS on his property.

Now you might argue that we cut down perfectly healthy trees, and topping is better as it leaves something and all that sort of stuff.

But removal and appropriate replanting is a better option and permanent solution.

However, sometimes you cant do that as the person down the hill wants the bottom half of the tree left. Now that gets sticky.

I have stood between 2 neighbours going hammer and tongs over this issue, the guy at the top of the hill is like King of the Castle and their attitude is "it's only a stupid tree, and an obsticle to this view I paid for". The people beneath are tree lovers and dont want to see his house. There's been covert poisoning ops by neibs etc ... can get really ugly.

Some trees dont lend themselves to drop crotching for reduction due to their form. If a compromise is reached and a topping is given the go ahead by the lower neighbour then would you do it?

If you going to tob a tree down a hill, isn't it better to just nock the whole thing down so incase it dies, you wont have to bring in the special equipment twice. The home owner wouldn't hire you pack if it was the same price to remove a dead stub in the ground after you removed 90% of the foliage and half of the stock. Right? Not unless your the only tree guy in town then you have it all. Yet even a palm can't be toped or else it dies, gets bugs and fall over onto the house at the bottom of the hill were not even the home owner would go.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Usually these sites are stands of trees that people think of as wild areas, not real landscape.

You drop a crotch to a big union and hope for the best.

Quite often these become revolving accounts, for some it's an annual job to go out in the winter to strip sprouts off the oaks on the bluff so they do not mess up the clients view.

There are some lakes where you can strip the tree all the way up, but not take any down unless dead. It is easy to assume how some companies sell that work..

One thing the WDNR has started to encourage is removal of large trees on bluff tops,because they tend to come off in big plates and slide down the slope...