Silver Birch reduction

[Rupe]

I do agree, reductions are in the most part pointless form the trees point of veiw, thats why I don't really post pictures of such work. Also I always forget either the "before" or the "after" shot!

 

In small gardens its the customers desire for something that creates the work, not the tree itself, we just provide what they want.

 

The only surprising thing here is that I got the job in the first place, I explained my prefferred method and they went for it, so the tree got a gentle touch. Its not often that that happens on these smaller jobs where folk just want more off for their money.

 

Good for them I say, and they are v. happy with the results and thanked me for not ruining their tree. Very occasionally the public surpise me and it has cheered me up this week!

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

My 'ten penneth'...if I may (frustratingly tho I never seem to get back to the thread to see what further's been said.)

 

Anyway..."reduction by 3-4m" originally permitted = WHAT???...WHY???

 

Perhaps a CA notif. where tree not deemed worthy of a TPO appen but to have undertaken those works would have severly affected the tree's amenity, albeit limited anyway.

 

In terms of the pruning, IMO, principally owing to the previous management I guess, the crown had developed quite densely ('congested'?) and the combined crown thin (excellent!) and selective crown reduction is a damn good job...well done!

 

In terms of it being 'pointless' I think this view stacks up less where Silver Birch are involved rather than say Lime or Silver Maple and I reckon the client will get a good 3, maybe 5, years of a less imposing tree in the interim. From the tree surgery professionals point of view, provided that was explained to the client, i.e. it's not a permanent fix, and they accepted then do the 'transaction'.

 

Good job Rupe, my previous (very, very limited) mentoring serves you well....tee hee!

 

Cheers..

Paul

[John Hancock]

Nice job Rupe.

 

I’ve done a fair few Birch reductions in years gone-by and they have all served their purpose , i.e. the punters have been happy and the trees have been retained, always better that option 2 – Fell to Ground Level.

[Dean Lofthouse]

I do agree, reductions are in the most part pointless form the trees point of veiw,!

 

I went to price a job the other day and the neighbour (who wanted the tree cut in half) was keen to point out that the last Tree surgeon stung the tree owner because they hardly took anything off, when he got home from work it wasn't much different.

 

I was itching to tell him it was me. The client wanted a reduction keeping the shape and form of the tree, the neighbour wanted it lopping.

 

It was a painstaking ball ache of a reduction (20%) done with silky and secutares, the ignorant turd

[Doug Blease]

I much prefer this style of reduction over the manicured 'lollypop' effect. Nice work, fully justified in terms of tree management. Essentially you have removed Xkg of mass from the tree, but passers by will hardly recognise that anything has happened. Therfore its value in terms of amenity has definately not been comprimised but its long term management has been fulfilled for the next 5-10 years.

 

Its funny how every thread of this nature inevitably turns into economics over management prescriptions. Had this tree not been pruned 10 years ago, then not pruned now, the management prescription in another decade could well have been to fell it. Not worrying about replanting, as its only a Birch after all! So I dont think reductions are ever 100% pointless.

 

Achieving the customers/owners aims and objectives are the deciding factor in my opinion. Its just up to us to interpret how we are going to achieve this.

 

The truck looks smart too Rupe! Cheers for posting the thread.