Ash reduction or remove?

[Bentonarb]

i agree with the it will stick the growth back on straight away, but surely if they want to keep the tree but want it safer then reduction is the only way to go, reduce the sail of the tree and reduceing the end weight is making it safer. the fact they will need it re reducing in the future isnt a reason to just fell it. end of the day its more money in the industry in a couple of years time that you wouldnt get if you felled it

 

 

I agree to this if we go round felling everything then there would be no repeat work for this job . It is true that being an ash it will put on a large amount of growth if you reduce it but at least the tree will look better than if you pollarded it .

[Stephen Blair]

If you care for trees then pollard it, and then come back in 10 years and do it again, and again and again, then the tree will live for hundreds of years. Muck about with thins and reductions to justify your cambium saver and silky if you like, but dont kid yourself its giving the tree less chance of failure.

[MattyF]

It does look well can think a few words for pollarding trees especially when done,I get were your coming from though stevie but a lot of people dont like looking at a load of stumps ! saying that the regrowth when on leaf after a couple of years gives the most perfectedly rounded crown most of the time!!

[Stephen Blair]

If people care about the tree first and looks second, then pollard. Mother nature will then reward them with the most perfect round crown even better than 1 of Hammies.

[tommer9]

If people care about the tree first and looks second, then pollard. Mother nature will then reward them with the most perfect round crown even better than 1 of Hammies.

 

[Rupe]

i agree with the it will stick the growth back on straight away, but surely if they want to keep the tree but want it safer then reduction is the only way to go, reduce the sail of the tree and reduceing the end weight is making it safer. the fact they will need it re reducing in the future isnt a reason to just fell it. end of the day its more money in the industry in a couple of years time that you wouldnt get if you felled it

 

It will only make it safer if its unsafe in the first place, which we don't know at this point. If its safe and you reduce it anyway it will then put the growth back on and probably heavier, potentially making it unsafe in the future and definatly more of a danger one day if its not re-done.

 

If it genuinly is unsafe then Pollard would be better because the future maintanence is then easier so therefore cheaper and therefore more likely to get done.

 

I just think fannying about with an Ash, which is never going to be a thing of beauty, is a waste of time, love it as it is or do something significant.

[Rupe]

I agree to this if we go round felling everything then there would be no repeat work for this job . It is true that being an ash it will put on a large amount of growth if you reduce it but at least the tree will look better than if you pollarded it .

 

That depends on who reduces it.

[finchyo]

Even if the ash was to be pollarded back, we would have to come back and do it again in 5 years or so just like a reduction. I think your right in saying that a pollard would be better for the tree but it does come back to ascetics. The client is a housing association miles away so they are not bothered about how it will look, just that its reduced in size, deadwooded and the repeat work cost.