whats your opinon of this pruning job?

[Hodge]

Get one of those Pole Saws that have a chainsaw head.Then you can reach up a bit higher.

 

Or get someone in who will do the job right??

[easy-lift guy]

Get one of those Pole Saws that have a chainsaw head.Then you can reach up a bit higher.

 

Only out of a bucket and secured. Using a power pole saw off of a ladder is never safe and far to dangerous.

easy-lift guy

[john p]

personally i dont think they look very good,left hand tree not a good shape IMO,but depends on clients desires i suppose! as mark said probably not great to start with

[john p]

Only out of a bucket and secured. Using a power pole saw off of a ladder is never safe and far to dangerous.

easy-lift guy

 

i think he was joking ELG

[samthescam]

Or get someone in who will do the job right??

 

Are you joking??? Do you realise how much qualified staff cost? Whatever next, you'll be telling me to have insurance and not dump stuff by the side of the road... I'd never be able to make money if i did all that.

 

On the other hand, I was joking. Nice to see everyone on here has a sense of humor.

[Mark Bolam]

Ha ha, nice one Sam, got Hodge good and proper!

 

The sad thing is Mike Hill was genuinely trying to help....

[Hodge]

Are you joking??? Do you realise how much qualified staff cost? Whatever next, you'll be telling me to have insurance and not dump stuff by the side of the road... I'd never be able to make money if i did all that.

 

On the other hand, I was joking. Nice to see everyone on here has a sense of humor.

 

Bahhh, u got me

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

(Potentially) the outcome of another poorly specified job me thinks.

 

BS3998 (2010) states:

"Specs for a percentage reduction are imprecise and unsatisfactory without reference to length, height, spread etc."

 

A spec could say, for instance, 30% reduction, which is not uncommon, and could result in a tree with an overall height of say 20m ending up:

1. 14m high (height reduction) = TOPPING

2. 15.5m (crown linear reduction, assuming 5m clear stem) = LOPPING

3. 18.4m approx. (crown volume reduction, assuming 5m clear stem) = CROWN REDUCTION

 

A vast difference and one that shouldn't be left to chance.

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

PS Hope I've got me maths right...a first!

 

PPS It might be wholly justified to do 1. & 2. above but be clear about it and use the correct terminology, perhaps avoiding 'topping' and 'lopping' and be careful about misuse of the term 'pollarding' (read the BS), and it doesn't comply with BS3998 (2010), as this implies not to remove more than 1/3rd of foliage bearing material in any one go, so be careful there too.

 

PPPS Sorry, 'gone on' AGAIN!!!

Edited February 20, 2012 by AA Teccie (Paul)

[treeseer]

(Potentially) the outcome of another poorly specified job me thinks.

 

BS3998 (2010) states:

"Specs for a percentage reduction are imprecise and unsatisfactory without reference to length, height, spread etc."

 

Agreed--ANSI is also clear that other details needed--not a book mind you just numbers. Size of cut is the most important imo.

 

Looks like a lot off that one on the right, but it depends on the objective.

 

How will it look in the summer? The best measure of how much is too much is the tree's response--panic sprouting, or stable regrowth?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Agreed--ANSI is also clear that other details needed--not a book mind you just numbers. Size of cut is the most important imo.

 

Looks like a lot off that one on the right, but it depends on the objective.

 

How will it look in the summer? The best measure of how much is too much is the tree's response--panic sprouting, or stable regrowth?

 

 

this is the most crucial point in (highlighted) evaluating a good reduction as opposed to a poor one, this is something I have tried in vain to get across on so many occasions. get it right and the tree just grows a more rounded nature with out any real difference in growth rates, get it wrong and we have dense competitive regrowth akin to a forest on sticks.

 

Heres a case in point, last reduced 12 years ago, this time is the third time my firm has been involved, judge for yourselves, I mean seriously this beech has twelve years re growth from the old points! you would be returning to most overdone reductions of this size much much sooner, like 7 years sooner.

 

And that has massive costs to your clients,

 

so get the right guys in, get a great job pay a little more than the bloke down the road your mate knows and spread the cost over 12 years as opposed to 5 years, think about it! For those interested in that kinda thing it was a four hour climb.

 

I can guarantee your clients knowing that would choose the pro job!