Work of the Tree surgeons.

[protreecare]

In my opinion it looks like somebody wasted their time and another persons money. To be a hazard a tree needs a target, some of the pictures show the trees near a street or driveway, and this would be a target. If I was consulting or giving an estimate, I would definately recomend removal with no questions. The owner could chose what they wanted, but I would hate to waste their money on something like this work.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

The lime seems to have very little wood, and the scraping seems to have removed supporting wood. I can't open the oak pix for some reason.

It looks like overscraping to me, breaking boundaries the tree has set up against decay. What are you painting with? No treatment has been found that is superior to the tree's natural defenses.

I excavate and treat some wounds and cavities experimentally but I am a small minority (1?) who confesses to doing so. One tree I excavated down near but not into boundaries cracked and died afterwards. Irrigation was lacking but I think the excavation may have hurt more then helped.

Best to pay more attention to removing load form the top than to scrape the cavities, if you want to lessen risk. Keep the images and the questions coming, Grigory!

Kneejerkedly recommending removal out of liability concern is nonsense unless you are unable to document the tree's condition and rate the risk and outline management options. If you can't do that, best to stick with the chainsaw, and don't pretend to be giving objective consultation as an arborist when you're looking at them all as a treecudder.

If every tree with a target was a hazard, we'd all have to live in a prairie.

 

[tophopper]

you guys have read to far into this,
first off Guy, i dont kneejerkedly recommend removal to eliminate liabilty on my part. If the tree is obviously a potential hazard I will recommend removal no question. If there is no target it may be another story, but rarely is there not a target of somesort.

Secondly, my whole point was that if a tree has major decay and a target it should most likely be removed, I wont try to sell some snakeoil by telling them I can extend the life of the tree by scraping out the decay and painting the wounds,or add "somesort" of pesticide as butch had mentioned. Thats a bunch of of crap a hazardous tree should be removed before it fails.

Thirdly, I am an arborist wiht a great deal of love for trees, I would much rather save a tree than cut one down. I dont "pretend" to give objective consultation i give objective consutation.
I fully explain my reasoning to my potential clients and let them make the decision. I dont force them to cut it down. I simply hand them the ball.
Furthermore, if they doubt my diagnosis I will tell them to get a second opinion from a qualified arborist. I am fully confident in my diagnosising abilities thus recommmending a second opinion to furhter back my statements.
I do agree reducing top load may be best to elimainate failure, but frankly to acheive such a reduction would normally mean mutilating the tree to death. Now wouldn't it be more cost effective and proactive to elimainate the problem tree now, and start over rather than milking a dead cow?

Butch, yes I could sell the tree owner some snake oil and tell them i can save there tree negleting to mention the structural integrity of the tree, then return after the tree fails to clean it up.
Ethically though, Im too honest for that. I wont take advantage of people just so I can get my hands in their pockets twice

 

[Koa Man]

Re: Re: hazardous trees

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Why remove them if you don't have to?

Because "the only safe tree is a stump", Don Blair. IAlthough I personally do not like to see a good tree removed, I do not hesitate to recommend removals if the tree is a hazard or a "weed" tree that does not belong in the particular location it is growing in.

 

[coffeecraver]

"Kneejerkedly recommending removal out of liability concern is nonsense unless you are unable to document the tree's
condition and rate the risk and outline management options.

If you can't do that, best to stick with the chainsaw,
and don't pretend to be giving objective consultation as an arborist when you're looking at them all as a treecudder."


The Arborist bears the responsibility for the decisions they make,especially should a tree fall and injure someone.

When an Arborist observes a hazardous tree on a site which they have responsibility for there is a duty to respond to the situation.The failure to do so may be considered as negligence.

The tree in question in this post is clearly a hazard: (A "hazard tree" is a tree with a defect plus a target)
Issues of liability and responsibility will lie with the Arborist.

If the Arborist fails to take corrective action, the courts will likely hold the Arborist legally responsible for damage caused to people and/or property.

If you were called upon to give your professional opinion and recomended the cavaity work,and the tree fell and hit a target,you could be held liable.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by tophopper
If the tree is obviously a potential hazard I will recommend removal no question.
J Sir, no offense meant. The question is, what "potential hazard" mean? Every tree is a potential hazard, but you wouldn't recommend removing each one. In the field we may agree a lot more closely on this; hard to talk about in the abstract.
"Hazard" implies a clear and present danger of injury to people or property that requires action.

Secondly, my whole point was that if a tree has major decay and a target it should most likely be removed, a hazardous tree should be removed before it fails.
OK, defining "major" is the problem here. When I look at a tree I look at what is holding it up and the load and the defects and go from there. Most of the old wood is not needed to hold the tree up, so decay minor or major is not the primary consideration.

I do agree reducing top load may be best to elimainate failure, but frankly to acheive such a reduction would normally mean mutilating the tree to death.

This is not my experience. A lot has to do with how the pruning is done. It also has to do with the eye of the beholder, see Readers Forum in TCI last month. If you're in this business to be a tree doctor, why be a Kevorkian? There are ways to extend safe tree life and have it look good.

A customer yesterday agreed to a severe reduction of a decling tree. There are enough good branches to leave to make this a viable strategy esthetically and biologically. At first he balked at the cost; then I compared it to removal and pointed out that this solution may buy him more years of tree use than he has himself. Not all trees show an "inner canopy" to aim for, but you will never find it if you don't look hard enough.

That said, the extent of scraping on Grigory's linden is way overboard, and the amount of holding wood is too thin to leave that tree. Grigory, googlesearch "tree compartmentalization" before you praise woodworkers for breaking all those boundaries.

 

[Grigory]

Ok.
I shall explain a situation: this work was made 1 year back. How many this work cost I do not know. This work was done by four men during 4 days. These works did (made) because these 4 trees represent aesthetic value for an environmental landscape. Neither customer nor contractor even nothing know that the tree can be dangerous. The customer (service of parks maintenance) and contractor nothing know about "Tree risk management"
If I have offered to the customer to remove these trees, having specified on their danger, me would name as the wrecker or saboteur Unfortunately such culture of parks maintenance in Russia
Hollow tree locate on a lawn and there is in radius of 1,5 heights no "target" Probably it strong enough. Good expansion in the bottom part of a trunk as a result of adaptive growth. And the thickness of a residual wall can be calculated.

Other two lime (photo Linde_1,2,3 and Linde x 4) locate in immediate proximity (3 ft) from a road on which the cars go and the people go. However hollow part of a trunk is directed to a road. Whether it can be by mitigating circumstance? Most likely tree will fall in opposite a direction from a potential target. (see Pics) Taking into account what to prove to the customer necessity of removal of trees it is impossible, to advise a cabling, as a means of reduction of danger?

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Most likely tree will fall in opposite a direction from a potential target. ..cabling, as a means of reduction of danger? [/B]

Grigory you right in seeing that adaptive growth is stronger. This tree can be cabled or roped to other trees to prevent it falling in the road, true, but the bigger problem is that the Parks people spent 16 man-days scraping the interior of those trees, making them weaker instead of stronger.

I congratulate you on your good English and your commitment to help the trees in Moscow, and I urge you to get information on compartmentalization--CODIT--from www.isa-arbor.com, and apply it to the Parks Dept.

USA Parks Dept. people also do some silly things, and many of their workers' English is nowhere near as good as yours!

 

[ROLLACOSTA]

guy meilleur im with you on this one for sure what a waste of time & money ,surely in 2004 it is well known that interferance with cavitys causes more damage too the tree ??? or am i the one missing something

 

[jmchristopher]

Grigory, I have just a little advice for you that might help you in your situation out there: forget about convincing every idiot out there. It sounds like you are way out in front of the general public. You can only offer your best advice, reasoning and recommendations. You might even tell new clients/ potential clients that what you are going to recommend might not sit well with what they have heard before. They don't have to accept it. Your first job is going to have to be establishing your reputation and building credibility, and as you probably know already, with some people it won't ever be enough. Bolshoya cpaciba for your great questions!

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by ROLLACOSTA
surely in 2004 it is well known that interferance with cavitys causes more damage too the tree

Not in Russia is it well known. Also, I'm not with the idea that interference with cavities is wrong, but interference with boundaries sure is.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I've seen a number of trees where there was cavity work done long ago. It seems to me that the survivability of those trees was either luck of the draw, or the vigor/vitality of the given tree and ability to recompartmentalize.

I have heard that some scribing out of bark cankers can be a good thing, but they can be necrotic to zylem too, so the entire infection has to be cut out. The same places recomended treatment with fungicides like Subdue.

My problem with most cavity work is that the bariers are so thin that often you don't see then untill they are broken.

If we are dealing with a saprophyte, then the it's not a big deal, the really bad ones are feeding on hard wood and can take advantage of the smallest breach in "wall" 4.

 

[ROLLACOSTA]

interferance with cavitys must be wrong ,youve said it yourself when you said interference with boundaries is wrong ! unless your yousing some kind of magnifacation equipment and even then would you know what your looking for i certainly would not ,any work on cavitys finnished in the uk years ago thank god

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Actually I saw a fellow in the UK expeonding the virtues of cavity work and bracing of the hollows. He had a whole page poo-pooing all arbo.lit. speaking against it.


There is still some of it here too.

That all said, I still cringe at the attitude of "It's a hazard! Cut it dow!" . The only time I go that far is if the tree is unsafe to work on without some secondary support. Otherwise I will try to find out what the potential client would like to do, how important that tree is. Maybe they would like to squeek a few more years out of the tree.

There is more then a bit of CYA, and yes we can be sued for anything these days. That said, it really is our responcability to give the client all options of managemnet. Offer our educated opinion yes, but the descision is ultimately with them.

As long as we document all options and keep these records where there is some open risk, then we will have suffucient CYA for court.

 

[ROLLACOSTA]

jps

for sure in the rite enviroment leave the trees to there natural cycle ,i also saw a few pages from some web site in the uk where some so called arborists carefully crafted some peices of timber and fixed them over 5 or 6 largeish holes on an old oak ,unfortuneatly they never explained the reason for this .

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Most of the cavity work I do is diagnostic not curative. If blunt tools are used or water spray then boundaries are respected. Airspade works really well too.

My biggest concern with excavation is subsequent drying, cracking and decay advance through the cracks. If you know what woodrotter you're dealing with it's easier to figure out the right strategy. Often it's best to let em be; Grigory's story about 16 man-days scraping just blows my mind.

The one strategy that is always right is to invigorate through improving root function, monitor:Eye: and treat pathogens, and remove dead (and unproductive) weight from the crown.

"document all options" yeah what jps said!

This winter I'm excising fusiform rust cankers on some of my own pines and experimenting with fungicides. Just playing around, stretching the envelope; if it rips then what the hey, they're my own trees! :blob1:

 

[Grigory]

To jmchristopher

Spasibo for yours support of our hard activity. When we work for the customer, we always try to notify the clients, if we find out on their plot undoubtedly dangerous trees. Sometimes people to consider to ours opinion. But more often they prefer to wait up to last and then to liquidate consequences of fall of a tree. We, in Russia have not enough of people, which can spend money on maintenance of trees.

 

[Grigory]

To Guy Meilleur

Mine English, unfortunately is equal to zero. I write posts with the help of the computer interpreter, computer dictionary and two books - dictionaries.
Essentially: A thank for your instruction(indication) on "tree compartmentalization" At last I have understood this mysterious abbreviation –CODIT –
In Russia there are many books and scientific works on phytopathology and mycology. However, basic attention in them is given to morphology and biology of fungus. Basically the methods of protection of agricultural plants are considered. Are much less investigated rotting of stem (morphology and biology are investigated well, also there are recommendations for strategy of struggle on a forest scales) However of detailed research of natural barriers inside wood I did not meet! Regarding of a separate, concrete tree there are only general recommendations, among which scraping of a cavity and spraying with CuSO4
But now there are many questions:
How can help a tree, which trunk is struck destructive fungus?
CODIT is formed in relation to anyone decay (cancer, blister rust, … etc) ?
If, there are trees broken because of rotting stem - so tree compartmentalization not on 100 % effectively?
It is possible - whether to raise(increase) efficiency of these four walls by additional fertilizing of a tree?

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Man Grigory, if your English is bad, what is mine!

Walls is a stong word for the chemical bariers that form the CODIT concept., and many pathogens have developed ways to get around them.

Fertilizing, as in the increasing of NPK, has been shown to increase fungal activity in stands of trees. Specificly the increase of N. There are studies done in The Netherlands on airborn amonia percipitate from agricultural operations. Another from here in Wisconsin, USA in the use of paper waste sludge to amend the soils.

In both of these studies there was an increase of foliar N and pathogenic ativities.

I have heard good things form "organic" arborists in the use of low N organics with a broad spectrum of othe escential elements.

One of the problems is that most of the research used to promote NPK stems from annual type food crop production where the idea of health is increased yeild in the short term crop.

While the white coats are working on what is right, good cultural practices, such as proper irrigation, aeration, mnoderating soil temps....will all help releave stresses that cause the tree to be susceptable to infection/infestation.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by John Paul Sanborn
I have heard good things form "organic" arborists in the use of low N organics with a broad spectrum of othe escential elements.

Yes, elements and microorganisms. Basically healthier soil -> improved root function. Also, on trees that are attacked by a woodrotting pathogen, it makes sense to try to inoculate the roots with a mycorrhizal fungus in an attempt to displace the pathogen.

Call it snake oil if you want; few clients have rejected the concept...come to think of it, none have! Maybe next summer I'll have some good results; trying to get beyond the "anecdotal" hurdle. jps, no one is putting enough $ in the pockets of the white coats to move this along much. Wish they would.

Grigory, your description of the state of science, and of tree owner concern, is not that far from USA's. Keep it up!