Why Topping Hurts Arborists

[Mark Bolam]

Unless it dies, of course.

[Mick Dempsey]

We're all going to die Mark.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the whys and wherefores of topping (which can mean anything from a reasonable reduction to leaving a monolith depending on different people's interpretations) has so many variables, species, situation, health of tree, that the perjorative use of the word to instantly define bad practice, especially by industry leaders, is counter productive.

[Steve Bullman]

Working in an area today where pretty much every tree as far as the eye can see has been topped..all mature Oaks, chestnuts etc..someone make a lot of money there about 20 odd years ago thats for sure. My job was re-topping them to previous points or just aboce, look hideous but not much else you can do with some of them

[oldwoodcutter]

It's always , 'I want this topped' or 'I want that lopped'

I gave up a long time ago trying to advise customers the exact opposite of what they request, 'for the benefit of the tree' , My cheery competitors would waste no time in steaming in behind my back and doing whatever the customer wanted with bells on.

So now we do what they ask,and relieve them of as much of their bank account as I can squeeze out of them.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 31 May 2017 at 10:22, Gary Prentice said:

I posted a couple of years ago saying that topping will stop when an arb is found liable after an incident involving a lapsed topped tree.

 

A couple of members mocked me for it as a drama queen, but there has been at least one death resulting from a failure of regrowth from a topped tree, that I know about.

 

It will only take one ambulance chaser to pursue the avenue of negligence and bad practice for things to start to change.

 

But I'm not holding my breath:001_smile:

The practice is alive and well in Cornwall Gary!  

 

This post to Facebook was accompanied by the text "...180 year old pollard over anex , heartwood fungus, fingers crossed she pulls through..."

 

It's only a small FB group (45 members.)  My comment "...***king pollard? Are you **ssed...?"  "...I can't figure what is most disappointing.... (a) that anyone would be so ill informed as to consider this a "pollard" (b) that it might be proudly, publicly posted as a paradigm of supposed professionalism or (c ) that of the 23 people that have seen it, nobody has ventured to comment how appallingly misinformed it is. Have I stumbled inadvertently into the "Travelling Tree Surgeons and tarmac crib room?" 

 

People 'do' what people 'do', and it's not a look at what the others are doing post, it's more a sad reflection on the state of the industry and the irreparable damage being done to our heritage by total idiots.  

 

Bring on the ambulance chasers I say, the sooner the better! 

[Gary Prentice]

31 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Have I stumbled inadvertently into the "Travelling Tree Surgeons and tarmac crib room?

 

Oi, don't drag me back kicking and screaming into the pollard/topping discussions. Along with politics and religion, it's a topic I'm trying to avoid involvement in.

[arbogrunt]

Ha ha!, about 80% of 'tree surgeons' don't know anything different. Add to that, clients who won't listen to sound advice...and the topping will continue for as long as treework does.

[skyhuck]

4 hours ago, arbogrunt said:

Ha ha!, about 80% of 'tree surgeons' don't know anything different. Add to that, clients who won't listen to sound advice...and the topping will continue for as long as treework does.

No. I reckon most know its not great, but if the client want "a shorter tree" what do you do?

 

Your argument is a bit like saying most GP's don't know being fat is bad for you, because most of their patients are fat. The GP's can tell them that being fat is unhealthy till the cows come home, but it won't make it happen.

 

IMO.

[Haironyourchest]

Re. the liability aspect, just wondering if the statute of limitations, usually 7 years, would apply? It would surely take a few years for a tree to produce new weak growth heavy enough to cause serious damage. If the hypothetical regrowth broke off later than 7 years after the topping, would the liability stick? Like, most building work is only guaranteed for ten years. Makes you wonder....

[arbogrunt]

22 hours ago, skyhuck said:

No. I reckon most know its not great, but if the client want "a shorter tree" what do you do?

 

Your argument is a bit like saying most GP's don't know being fat is bad for you, because most of their patients are fat. The GP's can tell them that being fat is unhealthy till the cows come home, but it won't make it happen.

 

IMO.

its both, in our neck of the woods, most pruning is lopping and topping. I gave up moral crusading for Arb years ago, I give the best spec for the tree, if the customer insists on having the tree cut in half, I explain why its not a good idea, if they still want the tree cut in half, I do it....unless its in a front garden!

The majority of our competitors, are only interested in cutting as many trees as possible in the shortest amount of time, BS 3998 just gets in the way of work like that, its all about speed, cheap prices and high output...£££