I got my tree reduced has it been done well?

[Martin du Preez]

I don't mean to start an argument but i think that you are so wrong. I'm no tree hugger but to fell every tree instead of pushing for a reduction? That is whats wrong with the arb world in my opinion. The majority of customers want everything felled, if one can't convince them to retain them how much will we lose? Also why would you be putting yourself out of repeat work? 

 

      It won't be every "2 years" to re-prune if it is done properly. Being able to prune and more importantly educating your customers is what makes a good arb (I hate doing reductions btw) 

[monkeybusiness]

  On 09/01/2021 at 09:58, Martin du Preez said:

I don't mean to start an argument but i think that you are so wrong. I'm no tree hugger but to fell every tree instead of pushing for a reduction? That is whats wrong with the arb world in my opinion. The majority of customers want everything felled, if one can't convince them to retain them how much will we lose? Also why would you be putting yourself out of repeat work? 

 

      It won't be every "2 years" to re-prune if it is done properly. Being able to prune and more importantly educating your customers is what makes a good arb (I hate doing reductions btw) 

Expand  

I talk a lot of people out of doing any work at all to their trees. Retention all the way as far as I’m concerned - wherever possible leave trees alone with absolutely no intervention at all.

We do reduce trees, and obviously undertake plenty of crown cleans etc. 
What I don’t agree with is trying to make a small tree out of a big tree - it’s a total waste of time and money most of the time.
I see loads of pics/posts of arborists undertaking pointless reductions (some very good, others as in this case not good at all) and largely come to the conclusion that the customer has wasted their money, and the arborist should have (morally and professionally) talked them into a different spec (including ‘do nothing’). 
Don’t get me wrong - I used to get great satisfaction looking at a tree I’d reduced nicely, and in some cases it is still the right solution (screening trees for example). But a lot of reductions are totally unnecessary money-earners as far as I’m concerned.

[Mick Dempsey]

  On 09/01/2021 at 09:58, Martin du Preez said:

I don't mean to start an argument but i think that you are so wrong. I'm no tree hugger but to fell every tree instead of pushing for a reduction? That is whats wrong with the arb world in my opinion. The majority of customers want everything felled, if one can't convince them to retain them how much will we lose? Also why would you be putting yourself out of repeat work? 

 

      It won't be every "2 years" to re-prune if it is done properly. Being able to prune and more importantly educating your customers is what makes a good arb (I hate doing reductions btw) 

Expand  

Whilst I dislike the idea of ‘educating’ clients I agree with the idea that ‘remove and replace with something more suitable’ is a big problem with the arb industry in the UK.

 

Try telling a client in their 50s or over to take a mature sycamore out a put a rowan or cherry in that they’ll never really see the best of.

You will look like a chancer.

Edited January 9, 2021 by Mick Dempsey

[lux]

  On 09/01/2021 at 10:24, monkeybusiness said:

I talk a lot of people out of doing any work at all to their trees. Retention all the way as far as I’m concerned - wherever possible leave trees alone with absolutely no intervention at all.
We do reduce trees, and obviously undertake plenty of crown cleans etc. 
What I don’t agree with is trying to make a small tree out of a big tree - it’s a total waste of time and money most of the time.
I see loads of pics/posts of arborists undertaking pointless reductions (some very good, others as in this case not good at all) and largely come to the conclusion that the customer has wasted their money, and the arborist should have (morally and professionally) talked them into a different spec (including ‘do nothing’). 
Don’t get me wrong - I used to get great satisfaction looking at a tree I’d reduced nicely, and in some cases it is still the right solution (screening trees for example). But a lot of reductions are totally unnecessary money-earners as far as I’m concerned.

Can’t agree here. If a customer wants their tree smaller for whatever reason just make sure it’s done properly. Making it smaller will probably mean it’s retained rather than felled.
Managing the interaction of people and trees is our business, not convincing people to leave their property alone because you happen not to like it.

[Martin du Preez]

  On 09/01/2021 at 10:24, monkeybusiness said:

I talk a lot of people out of doing any work at all to their trees. Retention all the way as far as I’m concerned - wherever possible leave trees alone with absolutely no intervention at all.
We do reduce trees, and obviously undertake plenty of crown cleans etc. 
What I don’t agree with is trying to make a small tree out of a big tree - it’s a total waste of time and money most of the time.
I see loads of pics/posts of arborists undertaking pointless reductions (some very good, others as in this case not good at all) and largely come to the conclusion that the customer has wasted their money, and the arborist should have (morally and professionally) talked them into a different spec (including ‘do nothing’). 
Don’t get me wrong - I used to get great satisfaction looking at a tree I’d reduced nicely, and in some cases it is still the right solution (screening trees for example). But a lot of reductions are totally unnecessary money-earners as far as I’m concerned.

Ok apologies that I completely and utterly agree with. If I can’t convince the customer on the 2m crown reduction and they want a “50% crown reduction like the others tree surgeons suggested” or a heavy reduction on a poplar then yea I’m all for fell it and replace with a more suitable specimen opposed to bothering it and felling it in 5 years time for them.

[Martin du Preez]

  On 09/01/2021 at 10:24, monkeybusiness said:

I talk a lot of people out of doing any work at all to their trees. Retention all the way as far as I’m concerned - wherever possible leave trees alone with absolutely no intervention at all.
We do reduce trees, and obviously undertake plenty of crown cleans etc. 
What I don’t agree with is trying to make a small tree out of a big tree - it’s a total waste of time and money most of the time.
I see loads of pics/posts of arborists undertaking pointless reductions (some very good, others as in this case not good at all) and largely come to the conclusion that the customer has wasted their money, and the arborist should have (morally and professionally) talked them into a different spec (including ‘do nothing’). 
Don’t get me wrong - I used to get great satisfaction looking at a tree I’d reduced nicely, and in some cases it is still the right solution (screening trees for example). But a lot of reductions are totally unnecessary money-earners as far as I’m concerned.

How ever on the point of “pointless reductions” and “wasting customers money” and if this is in reference to sympathetic pruning and light crown reductions I disagree.

One must educate a customer that a crown reduction shouldn’t be always viewed as a complete “solution” (to that of light, leaves in gutter, bird shit and whatever other bolloucks they come up with) BUT A “prevention/management of these problems escalating.

I always say that the “2m crown reduction” will prevent the crown growing larger as if one was to leave it say 10 years and it was to put on say another 6 metres one would still only be able to reduce the crown by 2 metres in order to keep the cuts small.( species specific)

(I’m much better explaining this face to face and slightly more awake but I hope that you catch my drift)

[Paddy1000111]

Issues like that are difficult. Where do you draw the line between doing the work and getting a happy customer and not wanting to put your name to a shoddy job that possibly kills the tree because that's what the customer wants?

It's made harder by other tree surgeons being happy to just lop off branches like in the OP's photo, take the cash and run. Any other industry like plumbing/electrics/roofing etc you would educate the client on why something shouldn't be the way they want it and why it should be done in X way instead.

 

I'm meant to be doing a theory based arb course this year (undecided on exactly what one with corona and distance learning etc), what's the point if I learn all the biology of trees to then do what the customer says and do something that will kill it? 

[lux]

  On 09/01/2021 at 10:43, Martin du Preez said:

Ok apologies that I completely and utterly agree with. If I can’t convince the customer on the 2m crown reduction and they want a “50% crown reduction like the others tree surgeons suggested” or a heavy reduction on a poplar then yea I’m all for fell it and replace with a more suitable specimen opposed to bothering it and felling it in 5 years time for them.

That’s partly my point.
2m is an irrelevant figure when you don’t know the crown size though.

If 50% is too hefty, which for many many species it is, guide your customer to say 25 to 30% done properly. They will get plenty of benefits from that and the tree will go on for years to come.

The worst cash cow is the ones the council give you on TPO’s
Spec like 1.8 metre reduction on a vast oak or beech that invariably costs a lot due to loads of climbing getting right out to the tips of a huge crown. Customer is always frustrated that’s what the council would allow and they get little benefit of a tiny reduction on a tree shading out their house or garden.

[Khriss]

  On 09/01/2021 at 10:58, lux said:

That’s partly my point.
2m is an irrelevant figure when you don’t know the crown size though.

If 50% is too hefty, which for many many species it is, guide your customer to say 25 to 30% done properly. They will get plenty of benefits from that and the tree will go on for years to come.

The worst cash cow is the ones the council give you on TPO’s
Spec like 1.8 metre reduction on a vast oak or beech that invariably costs a lot due to loads of climbing getting right out to the tips of a huge crown. Customer is always frustrated that’s what the council would allow and they get little benefit of a tiny reduction on a tree shading out their house or garden.
 

Expand  

Shouldnt have bought a house next to a tree then ☺️  oh..... Hang on, wrong thread 🙄 K

[lux]

  On 09/01/2021 at 11:01, Khriss said:

Shouldnt have bought a house next to a tree then [emoji5]  oh..... Hang on, wrong thread [emoji849] K

Bugger. I was just about to throw ugly 80s architecture into the mix as well