To top or not to top.

[David Humphries]

We have to think of liabilty issues as well, the tree is over a footpath and leaving big hunks of standing deadwood over the path is just not on in my book.

 

As mentioned during the first post, the tree is leaning away from the target (path).

The arrissings from the job have been used tio exclude people from under the lean via a dead hedge.

 

The main Raison d'être in this case, is safety followed by tree/habitat.

 

 

Welcome to the site Walker

.

[Drella]

Topping?

 

Never met the dude.

[MattyF]

nice one monkey ive reduced very large beach(50M+)by 50% or over to make safe and they are doing very well and that was around 10 years ago...some dont,some die but if thats what it takes to make a choice of felling or trying to save then its the best way...as for the yanks well they dont do "reductions"they just lions tail every thing.

 

walker i apreciate what your saying mate but reductions in are industry are bread and butter i would never go over 15%-25% max but heavyer reductions are often necessary and i think this one holds its warrent....topping it is not and monkey aint topping so lets draw it there

[skyhuck]

Nelly is a Denka DL28, she was probably at half mast max, at that fell height.

 

She can get us to approx 90' straight up, and has about 35-40' of out reach.

 

.

 

COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You need to take that stupid basket off and fit a hook, now that would be one nice crane:001_tt1:

[Jack-Arb aka Tiago Sinclair-Julio.]

Hi monkeyd,

 

Pity that the pic are a bit blured cause theres so nice photos there! What a day it didn't stop pissing down for a moment...

 

I tend to disagree with topping trees in any kind of scenario but now im chaging my mind in certain cases, and this is a good example. I prefer to have a mature topped beach tree than no tree, or a baby replacement. I know that some might argue that theres no dignity left in the tree, but lets wait and see how well the tree reacts, it just might put lots of growth and form a nice lower canopy and live for a few more decades!

 

Wouldn't have done this on a open growing tree, that I think would have been wrong....

 

Ciao, boa noite!

 

Jack

[David Humphries]

I can see from posts that there seems to be two sides to this sort of work people like myself who work for someone would save a tree everytime for as long as posible or SULE. but others who work for themselves would fell:scared1:

 

I'm guessing this is predominantly the Moolah effect, David.

 

Also the self employed will I presume, more often than not see a tree as "one off" with not much thought to a given sites ecology, and past history.

 

Tree management can be and is sustainable * for many trees that would otherwise be felled prematurely, especially with the foresight and imagination to talk a client into staged reduction for the benefit of the site and tree, as opposed to the benefit of "immeadiate" risk mitigation the client desires, which doesn't give any thought to the legacy of tree ownership that should be passed on, not abandoned.

 

* Obviously dependant on tree condition, target assesment, site usage etc.......

[Mac McLennan]

walker i apreciate what your saying mate but reductions in are industry are bread and butter i would never go over 15%-25% max but heavyer reductions are often necessary and i think this one holds its warrent....topping it is not and monkey aint topping so lets draw it there

 

Spot on.

 

Topping is what people do when they have no knowledge of the alternatives, or the skill to carry them out.

 

I too have carried out 'large reductions' in order to save a tree (in the right situation).

 

Hell, look at my avatar.......Only Joking

[18 stoner]

Spot on.

 

Topping is what people do when they have no knowledge of the alternatives, or the skill to carry them out.

 

What he said:001_cool:

 

Good call in my opinion Dave, and nice work.

 

Not sure about nelly- something about being in a basket 90foot up would give me a shiver:scared1:

[Drella]

Spot on.

 

Topping is what people do when they have no knowledge of the alternatives, or the skill to carry them out.

 

I too have carried out 'large reductions' in order to save a tree (in the right situation).

 

Hell, look at my avatar.......Only Joking

 

Without a doubt..

 

I've seen way beyond thousands of situations in my time and not one would merit a topless tree...

[Zenfordinner]

"I can see from posts that there seems to be two sides to this sort of work people like myself who work for someone would save a tree everytime for as long as posible or SULE. but others who work for themselves would fell"

 

I believe I have read many a post on this forum where people who work for themselves refuse to do awful, or unnecessary things to trees purely for the sake of moolah.

 

"Also the self employed will I presume, more often than not see a tree as "one off" with not much thought to a given sites ecology, and past history."

 

Who does the someone you work for work for?

Who are these people/firms that are willing to 'save' trees, and seem to have the corner on the market, as it were, for integrity and creativity in tree work?

 

Please forgive my grumpy tone: I admit I am a bit grumpy today.

 

I am curious though about the criteria involved in this instance in separating those who work for someone and those who are self employed. For example, do the people/person you two work for have bills to pay? Are they non profit organisations, conservation companies; who decides on the final spec of a job; do they know about trees and tree work or do they merely run a company entrusting staff to decide on what to do for a tree or trees; do they have a free reign in what is decided to do (or not to do) on any given tree, or do they have to work within limits that often come with a client paying the bill?