Would THIS offend you?

[Big 'Ammer]

Three years ago we did some reduction work on a very large horse chestnut that had had some storm damage.

 

The idea being to reduce end weight etc..

 

It is a very large tree that was cut back over 30 years ago, again in response to storm damage, much in the fashion of Pete's Hotel tree.

 

The suggestion at the time was to cut it hard back again and let it come back. Veterenise, pollard, top, butcher, however you wish to call it.

 

This summer a large limb failed again and we were called back to further reduce it.

 

Again the suggestion from ourselves and management was to pollard it right back to the heavy wood and let it come back, there is plenty of hairy growth on the tree.

 

There's no targets and the owners wish to try and retain the tree as a large tree, so again, we reduced back as much as we dare to some suitable points.

 

In my opinion it will fail again, and we will be back to take it down within the next five years and a big old tree will be lost.

 

How many years could it be retained with say a 15 year repollarding cycle?

 

At the end of the day, its always down to the clients, its their tree and their money.

 

Imo, Pete's tree will still be here in 20 years time and my tree won't.

 

Buzzsurgeon make's a very valid point about old churchyard horse chestnuts.

[Dean Lofthouse]

I think the facts were already presented in the pictures

 

Previously pollarded and staining in the cuts.

[jaime bray]

I think that there is a lesson to be learnt by many relating to this thread.

 

I think that it is often the case that arbs will see something and say that must be the case, this is also evident in the research carried out into AOD, whereby scientists are having to reassess their initial opinions and readjust.

 

Is it a bad thing to jump in with an opinion about stuff before carrying out sufficient probing questioning that may at a later stage alter your opinion.

 

If we ever find ourselves in court, then the rule of the third question from lawyers will make you look a fool if snap conclusions are made without prior consideration.

 

The first question draws out an opinion, the second gets you to further support that opinion but does so in a slightly different manner, the third gets you to then REALISE THAT THE SECOND ANSWER YOU GAVE COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST QUESTION AND MAKES YOU LOOK A FOOL.

 

In some ways 18 stoner i applaud the manner in which this thread has evolved.. Theres lots to be learnt from this about client management and professional conduct and opinion giving.

 

I think as we evolve into a consultants role and even as the industry moves into a more professional status, when we engage with other professions on site our conduct must begin to adapt if we are to raise the industries professional status and profile.

 

By being considered and thoughtout will arboriculture benefit from the approach of its operatives. I personally think so!!

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

I think that there is a lesson to be learnt by many relating to this thread.

 

I think that it is often the case that arbs will see something and say that must be the case, this is also evident in the research carried out into AOD, whereby scientists are having to reassess their initial opinions and readjust.

 

Is it a bad thing to jump in with an opinion about stuff before carrying out sufficient probing questioning that may at a later stage alter your opinion.

 

If we ever find ourselves in court, then the rule of the third question from lawyers will make you look a fool if snap conclusions are made without prior consideration.

 

The first question draws out an opinion, the second gets you to further support that opinion but does so in a slightly different manner, the third gets you to then REALISE THAT THE SECOND ANSWER YOU GAVE COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FIRST QUESTION AND MAKES YOU LOOK A FOOL.

 

In some ways 18 stoner i applaud the manner in which this thread has evolved.. Theres lots to be learnt from this about client management and professional conduct and opinion giving.

 

I think as we evolve into a consultants role and even as the industry moves into a more professional status, when we engage with other professions on site our conduct must begin to adapt if we are to raise the industries professional status and profile.

 

By being considered and thoughtout will arboriculture benefit from the approach of its operatives. I personally think so!!

 

Not sure if this is aimed at me or not. But if so, I still stand by my original opinion. I stated that it was necessary to "educate" the client and as it turns out Pete had done this. He had also been liaising closely with the LA. The result being what is seen in the OP. I therefore do not feel in the least bit foolish as I expect Pete was anticipating such a response. In fact he would likely have been worried if he had not got such a response on a "professional" forum!

[jaime bray]

Not sure if this is aimed at me or not. But if so, I still stand by my original opinion. I stated that it was necessary to "educate" the client and as it turns out Pete had done this. He had also been liaising closely with the LA. The result being what is seen in the OP. I therefore do not feel in the least bit foolish as I expect Pete was anticipating such a response. In fact he would likely have been worried if he had not got such a response on a "professional" forum!

 

No, it wasnt aimed at anyone, was a general assessment of how I see things at times within the arboricultural industry.

 

There were parts to my posts in relation to this thread that had elelments of 'jumped to conclusions' entailed. Its human nature.

 

Was merely trying to create awareness; through what has been a good thread, of the issues and likely occurances of conclusion forming without due consideration.

[phirow]

Just pollard correctly will save the tree for the future.

Pollarding has been done for centuries

why has the uk got to be different and modern

by the way it looks bad

[David Humphries]

A chestnut that was damaged in the storm of 1987.

20 years of regrowth (first shot) was becoming a concern, particularly as the tree was on a steep bank leaning toward the road below.

 

So we stripped back to 87/88 prunning points in 2007.

Next shots show the regrowth in 2009

 

Last shots were taken today.

 

Thought that we would return and strip out again at between 5-7 years, so perhaps have another 2-3 years before going back and working on it again.

 

 

 

.

[Lee Winger]

Pollard, ok by me, better than a fell if that's plan B

 

Thats not pollarding...................

[18 stoner]

A chestnut that was damaged in the storm of 1987.

20 years of regrowth (first shot) was becoming a concern, particularly as the tree was on a steep bank leaning toward the road below.

 

So we stripped back to 87/88 prunning points in 2007.

Next shots show the regrowth in 2009

 

Last shots were taken today.

 

Thought that we would return and strip out again at between 5-7 years, so perhaps have another 2-3 years before going back and working on it again.

 

 

 

.

 

David, thanks for sharing that. That gives me a little hope for the tree yet.

 

Obviously we have the issue of the extent of Phytophra(sp), but if our chestnut responds even half as well as yours, we will have made the right decision.

 

.

[fagus]

Offended. If there are no defects or other reasons why do anything. Pruning trees to allay worries about what might happen is poor practice; pruning should be based on the facts present. Any pruning wounds lessen the life of the tree.You now have a tree of limited life say 30 years and still going to cost money. If totally necessary it is better to fell and replant with a extra heavy nursery stock and you have a tree for next 150 years.

 

The worse thing is that it is a advertisement for the hundreds of passing public; giving the impression that this is an acceptable way to treat trees.

There are considerations about client wants but there are safety issues in a few years of which they should also be made aware. Sudden branch drop is rare occurrence, insecure branches falling from previous cuts is not.

 

Remind them as prudent tree owner they should have their tree stock inspected twice a year-in leaf and out,to keep inspection records which will satisfy any liability considerations i.e any issues that occur could not have been foreseen.

I know if you turned down the work someone else will do it but at least you have standards. It is a slippery slope to do just about anything to get work.

Edited December 7, 2012 by fagus
punctuation