Hamas big reduction/pruning thread!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I'd say to pay the bills and buy things.

 

anyone would think these customers are Junkies and I am thier dealer!

[educated arborist]

go back to the begining, first post first page!

 

no answers there, are you trying to acheive more light? a lesser hazard? create a sculpture/ certian shape? or do the clients just insist on maintaining it at a certain size for no particular reason?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

no answers there, are you trying to acheive more light? a lesser hazard? create a sculpture/ certian shape? or do the clients just insist on maintaining it at a certain size for no particular reason?

 

No answers there? it states quite cleary what the purpose of the thread is? OH you mean why have these trees been reduced! al of the above!

[educated arborist]

its quite a maintaince intensive way of managing a tree IMO which is great because it makes us work but is not usually best for the client IMO.

I feel that its important that a client understands that once it's been reduced it will continue to need re-reducing & that any increased light may well be short lived as is any lower hazard rating. A good thin is usually better implimented in my experiance, less chance of epicormic growth, less stress for the tree, reduced sail effect & often more light for longer than a reduction. A big tree is not unsafe because it is big & reducing it will not nesiserily make it any safer & if it is not re-reduced then it will be less safe than it was in the begining. Taking back senecent trees is fine but i'd prefer to brand it a staged take down and this is how many reductions end up, each reduction has to go back that little bit further to find sound wood/unions until the prune is a boll.

I'm not saying that any of the pictured reductions were poorly implimanted just that many ( more often that not) are poorly implimented even if well executed.

[Stephen Blair]

we can only assume tony's boss has covered all the points you make about repeat work.

i tell my customers' the minute you sink a saw into a tree you will always have too' but not all cutomers are wanting a one payment fell and forget. Most of mine(who seek me out) want whats best for the tree, surroundings and laterly them. I have no quams of getting straight to the point and ask what their budget is.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

its quite a maintaince intensive way of managing a tree IMO which is great because it makes us work but is not usually best for the client IMO.

I feel that its important that a client understands that once it's been reduced it will continue to need re-reducing & that any increased light may well be short lived as is any lower hazard rating. A good thin is usually better implimented in my experiance, less chance of epicormic growth, less stress for the tree, reduced sail effect & often more light for longer than a reduction. A big tree is not unsafe because it is big & reducing it will not nesiserily make it any safer & if it is not re-reduced then it will be less safe than it was in the begining. Taking back senecent trees is fine but i'd prefer to brand it a staged take down and this is how many reductions end up, each reduction has to go back that little bit further to find sound wood/unions until the prune is a boll.

I'm not saying that any of the pictured reductions were poorly implimanted just that many ( more often that not) are poorly implimented even if well executed.

 

Sounds to me like your saying exactly what it says you SHOULD do in the books, now go sell that concept to the letter, without compromise.

 

Who will go broke first, you or me?

[educated arborist]

good points. All of my clients tend not to opt for a reduction after ive explained the options only once in three years have i had a client say nope i just want it in half no questions asked. I have not reduced 1 mature tree in those three years with the exeption of some staged take downs with their replacements growing up next to them allowing the loss of tree cover to be staggered. Then there are some of my signiture giants topiary which have an anual trim (so far) without fail. When you word it positivly & honestly most people are quite apriciative. My quote boog is FULL of dendrological diagrams/ doodles i draw to illistrate what i mean to clients. But prehaps the people who seek me out are typically wanting me to suggest how best to maintain their tree/ tree stock as apposed to all-ready having decided what prune to have on which trees.

[RopeKnight]

Reducing in Canada. The sadest thing for me is to find after every storm a tree has failed at the gound or with a major limb/leader. Some times you have to be cruel to be kind. take for example young tree training. If you refuse to remove a co-dom and let it grow because its not very nice for the tree and the client sees a whole in the tree you have done a diservice to both. Do what you feel is right and spend as much time with the principle concepts used for young tree training. The right thing is to treat each pruning cut as if it where a small tree. I will prune harder for hazardous limbs and prune at leaf out on vigorous trees to avoid epicorms. What I don't want to happen is the tree to fail and home owners getting excited and resorting to a removal and to constantly repair trees that have failed that had been recently pruned with out any reductions. Reductions require alot more mental and physical energy than any removal. Get rid of spurs and the routine and find a friend out there on the tips.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

good points. All of my clients tend not to opt for a reduction after ive explained the options only once in three years have i had a client say nope i just want it in half no questions asked. I have not reduced 1 mature tree in those three years with the exeption of some staged take downs with their replacements growing up next to them allowing the loss of tree cover to be staggered. Then there are some of my signiture giants topiary which have an anual trim (so far) without fail. When you word it positivly & honestly most people are quite apriciative. My quote boog is FULL of dendrological diagrams/ doodles i draw to illistrate what i mean to clients. But prehaps the people who seek me out are typically wanting me to suggest how best to maintain their tree/ tree stock as apposed to all-ready having decided what prune to have on which trees.

 

you will lose my interest in replying to you by attempting to lead me down a path that makes you seem like a superior dude! I dont like the way you insinuate that my work is negative for the tree and client, others are too.

 

We discuss what a client wants, we give advice, and we meet inbetween usualy, because there is always a middle ground, and NOTHING wrong with a well managed cyclic reduction, plenty equal arguments for thinning being a negative, but hey thats the nature of this business, we all seem to have our niches, and reduction is one of mine.

 

personaly I think those that dont like to offer a reduction cant do them well or are too lazy as climbers to get out there and perform!

 

 

ooooo, release the hounds!

[Dean Lofthouse]

personaly I think those that dont like to offer a reduction cant do them well or are too lazy as climbers to get out there and perform!

 

 

ooooo, release the hounds!

 

Or you turn that round and say those that do heavy reductions cant or cant be bothered going out to do tip reductions so just cut back that much lower down