Crown Cleaning and BS3998 - A Disgrace

[scotspine1]

If you've ever had to undertake a crown clean on a mature beech, i'd guess that you didn't remove ALL the crossing branches. If so, then why use the term crown clean?[/

 

I'm not gonna accept that Tony,

 

your assuming the climbers carrying out the work are stupid.

 

Most intelligent qualified climbers working on a mature Beech will fully understand the consequences of removing established crossing limbs, if not their supervisor or employer should make it clear why the removal of crossing limbs is detrimental to the tree, this in itself is no reason to remove the term crown clean from BS3998. Most intellegent climbers have a very good understanding of the term crown clean and its limitations.

 

I suspect the reason for the removal of the term crown cleaning is because it is not politically correct enough for the arbor ecologists, they are offended by the term in that it implies a sterile environment unsuitable for fungi and bats etc. They're advocating the retention of deadwood, but with the removal of deadwood being the primary goal of a crown clean it does not sit well with their ideology......so they had the term removed.

[David Humphries]

Explain why crown cleaning is bad for a tree if the tree is grown in an artificial environment ie a town or city? .

 

 

I'm getting the impression that you are looking at individual trees here as singular entities with scant regard to their wider place in the conected urban forest & without considering the impact they have on both the ecological & psychological environment around us.

 

Also I don't believe I have read or heard any of the draft panel describe the removal of dead wood as 'bad for a tree'

 

 

 

Horse has bolted with this one Mr Pine.

 

Did you take the chance to raise your concerns at draft stage ?

 

If not, this is utterly pointless until the next draft.

 

 

Fine thought provoking thread though

 

.

[Paul Jenks]

Also, the BS is a document that allows non-tree professionals to understand more precisely what is being specified. Anyone who went on the recent set of roadshows instigated by the AA will have a better understanding of why this is. The focus of the BS is about what is best for the tree, (I know this isn't always whats best for the client or the situation but there are caveats for these circumstances.)

A good old school crown clean has the capacity to remove 30% of the foliar area of a tree and to then carry out other pruning works to the tree would damage it long term.

Crown clean is a generic catch-all, which I agree, a good arborist will be able to interpret.

The client and sometimes the arbitrater in a dispute are the ones who need to understand what processes were carried out. Therefore be specific.

[Amelanchier]

I'm not gonna accept that Tony,

 

your assuming the climbers carrying out the work are stupid.

 

Well unfortunatley for you, the validity of my arguement is not diminuished by your refusal to agree with it. Though your outrage might obscure the fact that you're changing the subject as usual.

 

Specifications need to be specific - by definition. Why don't we just spec 'pruning' and just hope that the guy with the saw knows what to do? Because then it isn't a spec. Operative intelligence is irrelevant.

 

I think the issue here is that a lot of people write specs for themselves or their staff. Bottom line is if you are recommending tree work for third party completion and you actually care about what is done to the tree, then you must use precise terms. Crown clean is not a precise term.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Amelanchier
sp

[High Scale]

When I first heard the term 'crown clean' I thought some one was pulling my leg, I'm glad it's been banished.

[janey]

I echo Tony's comments on this.

 

The term "crown clean" may well be understood by the majority of arbs' but it is lazy terminology. Which is not the same as saying that the people who carry out the work are lazy.

 

I have never used the term in the many years that I have written work specs as, by it's definition, it is not a specific term. It would save me huge amounts of time, but then would saying every tree should have a "general prune". All non specific terms and open to individual interpretation.

[scotspine1]

The client and sometimes the arbitrater in a dispute are the ones who need to understand what processes were carried out. Therefore be specific.

 

Bottom line is if you are recommending tree work for third party completion and you actually care about what is done to the tree, then you must use precise terms. Crown clean is not a precise term.

 

When I first heard the term 'crown clean' I thought some one was pulling my leg, I'm glad it's been banished.

 

The term "crown clean" may well be understood by the majority of arbs' but it is lazy terminology.

 

from the ISA's Trees are Good website, explaining pruning to the public -

 

Cleaning is the removal of dead, dying, diseased, crowded, weakly attached, and low-vigor branches from the crown of a tree.

Trees Are Good - Tree Care Information

--------------------------------

 

So what exactly is it about this term that is so unacceptable? if there is a need to retain deadwood during a crown clean then add a comment such as, ' retain deadwood in the lower crown over river'

 

Who is now going to let the ISA know that Crown Cleaning is obsolete in the UK? You'll be given short shrift thats for damn sure, and quite rightly so.

 

In the rest of the world the term is widely understood by consultants and arborists alike, it is widely used in the UK arb industry and will continue to be used by anyone with an ounce of common sense regardless of the new BS3998.

 

Who was the individual responsible for the removal of the term anyway? who was it who actually said, 'I think we should remove crown cleaning from the BS3998', more to the point, why didn't someone stand up and say, 'dont be so ridiculous'

 

what the hell went on in these meetings?

 

 

.

Edited April 14, 2011 by scotspine1

[bumble B]

The entire point of a specification is that it is specific. Crown clean is a generic term that encompasses a range of specific activities - some of which may not be appropriate to the tree. It therefore does not belong in a tree work specification. In that context, it is a crap term.

 

I'll tell that to my local tree officer then.

[bumble B]

There goes my pressure washing job on a big Oak next week

 

:lol:

[Stephen Blair]

 

I had £950 on it, not so funny now Mr Bumble:sneaky2:

 

For an extra £250 i was going to wax and Tree-Cut it:laugh1: