Hamas big reduction/pruning thread!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I'm wrong because I don't spec as much work as you might?

 

Sigh.

 

no your wrong because you think like the clan that believe trees dont need work doing to them.

[Amelanchier]

Persecution complex huh?

 

The trees need you? You make trees better with your saw? I suppose we should be glad you're not a physiotherapist.

[David Humphries]

Persecution complex huh?

 

The trees need you? You make trees better with your saw? I suppose we should be glad you're not a physiotherapist.

 

 

Have to say, that is particularly funny.

 

I nearly wee'd in me pfanners

 

 

 

.

[Amelanchier]

On a duller but less sarcastic note I suspect (I hope?) that Tony and I simple disagree over whether we are speaking in the context of individual trees versus whole populations of them and the definitions of the words;'need' and 'pruning'.

 

In the context of the sentence 'Trees don't need pruning', I simply mean; 'Generally speaking, the survival of trees is not contingent on people cutting bits off them'.

 

I would imagine when Tony protests that trees do need intervention he means; 'It is desirable to extend the longevity of some trees by the careful removal of those parts that may predictably foreshorten a trees lifespan'.

 

If so, I doubt either of us has a problem with the others opinion. Boring huh?

[swinny]

Ash reduction done the other very very windy day! Customer wanted it topped, basically cut in half, but managed to convince them to go for a reduction instead. Limb also drawn back from the garder. Did loose a couple of growth points due to the wind and size of bits removed. This is 2 tree's next to each other:

 

 

before:

[Adam Bourne]

On a duller but less sarcastic note I suspect (I hope?) that Tony and I simple disagree over whether we are speaking in the context of individual trees versus whole populations of them and the definitions of the words;'need' and 'pruning'.

 

In the context of the sentence 'Trees don't need pruning', I simply mean; 'Generally speaking, the survival of trees is not contingent on people cutting bits off them'.

 

I would imagine when Tony protests that trees do need intervention he means; 'It is desirable to extend the longevity of some trees by the careful removal of those parts that may predictably foreshorten a trees lifespan'.

 

If so, I doubt either of us has a problem with the others opinion. Boring huh?

 

 

no not boring........ both of your views is what pretty much sums up my overall views on reduction work, ok granted there are always going to be someone who wants it doing for more light:001_rolleyes: or because its over taking the garden and they don't want to lose it:001_smile:, but if its not needed then we as professional's should be able to see when its needed or not needed, but to reduce a tree like you describe to remove branch structure that may predictably foreshorten the trees lifespan, IMHO its well underteached and needs to be addressed to help not only the older tree's but some semi mature trees that could of been given the chance, not just removed............................

 

 

oh and for the record my sycamore has to be worth a 9...............

[Fungus]

In the context of the sentence 'Trees don't need pruning', I simply mean; 'Generally speaking, the survival of trees is not contingent on people cutting bits off them'.

 

According to Nigel Fay, Ted Green and Jill Butler, all British veteran oaks, beeches, ashes, Castanea and Carpinus are pollards, that would not have survived nor become a veteran if people would not actively have "managed" the trees by cutting "bits" of them.

[RobArb]

They might not of survived, I agree there... BUT... They didn't NEED to be managed, they didn't ask us to do it:biggrin:

 

Both view points are valid and have strong cases for, but essentially trees don't NEED to be pruned, we need to do it in some instances to prolong the life of a beautiful organism:thumbup:

 

Sent from my Galaxy S2

[Adam Bourne]

They might not of survived, I agree there... BUT... They didn't NEED to be managed, they didn't ask us to do it:biggrin:

 

Both view points are valid and have strong cases for, but essentially trees don't NEED to be pruned, we need to do it in some instances to prolong the life of a beautiful organism:thumbup:

 

Sent from my Galaxy S2

 

absolutely spot on IMO.....................:thumbup:

[Dean Lofthouse]

Planning is responsible for a lot of the "need" to prune trees

 

Far too much housing passed in close proximity to trees.