Which trees to remove

[John Paul Sanborn]

Darn I wrote several paragrafs last night and musta hit the wrong button

Poof into the eather.

What i wrote was in the same vein as Guy's post.

Stand grown trees do not have the girth to weather strong winds by themselves.

Mattheck developed a statistical ratio hight to girth for risk. (girth just above the zone of rapid taper.)

30:1 is nominal
50:1 is critical
10:1 is a joke for optimal (12 inch trunk on a 12 foot tree)

you can get a good idea with a yardstick. When the girth is 1/2 inch in the veiw perspective then the hight should be around 15 inches or less for a tree to stand alone. if it is .5:25 then there is a high probability of storm failure.

In discusion of inheritance, which will be more valuabel?

• maintaining the outbuildings they way and where they are?
• keeping large trees on the property for future generations to marvel at?
  [/list=a]
  
  if it is "a" then i would take the large stems encroaching on the buildings.
  
  if it is "b" then I would move the buildings wen they are restored to allow good future development of trees.
  
  As for the trees on a case by case basis, I'm with the comment on risk evaluation of each of them. I've had trees we thought we had to take down from one veiw, and then walk around it and the defect becomes manageable.
  
  And the oposet happens frequently. It appears to be i good shape, then you get up inside and want to get down.

 

[wiley_p]

Unless you're not getting enough removals to make you sore there isnt any reason to take any of those trees out based on the photo supplied. possibly as much as I hate to say it you may have to do some other cuts besides deadwood, but certainly the spacing on these trees is fine maybe the best thing to do would be some work on the root zone, not as sexy as swinging around the canopy , not as good of pics for the site, but infinitely more important than "pruning".

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Most definatly. i'm sure there are some compaction issues there.