Co-Dominent stems on large Sycamore. Opinions please?

[JonnyVine]

Totally agree regarding any bracing at all on any tree, its a complete un measurable recommendation, all you are doing is admitting the presence of a defect and guessing the correct prognosis to resolve the issue, as you indicate the 'mechanics' need to be precise and only an engineer could calculate such a system. Its ok on man made structures when they have a calculable ingredient but not woody natural growth of an undetermined and unknown strength. A shake test is not the answer.

 

No one could disagree with what you have put Jesse, however I feel bracing deserves a little defence here as it does have a rightful place in arboriculture.

 

Bracing a tree is, like you say, admitting that a fault exists, but no stronger admission than writing out a management plan after a tree inspection?

 

Fortunately the law understands that trees are different to concrete structures and could never be 100% safe, or, calculable.

Therefore, as long as any bracing has been done correctly and by a "competent" person then "reasonable care" has been taken.

 

Also, there have been several instances where bracing has averted serious damage even fatalities due to the branch behaviour in the event of failure

 

Jonny

[Paul Cleaver]

Allot of what we do is a compromise of what should be done and what the customer wants! I know it's a case of wrong tree wrong place and the structure be it safe or not shouldn't really come into it, however the customer loves the tree and simply will not fell, she wants a crown reduction and wether we do it or somebody els does it, that is what she will get. At the time I felt cobra bracing may have been the way to go as it does not support the tree but acts as a backup if things where to go wrong. I even felt so strongly for the need for it that I was prepared to instal it at a parts only cost!

 

From the feedback of this thread my understanding of compression forks have changed and I am now happy with carrying out a crown reduction as the customer wishes.

I get paid, customer gets a smaller tree, tree doesn't get felled(yet)

 

Thats How I do It, you have explained the faults and poss consequences, given her the options and let her make a choice - its her tree:thumbup1:

[treeseer]

No it's an acknowledgement that soil density is of critical importance. A 200mm loose uncompacted layer is less of a problem than 100mm compacted. The 'wordiness' sometimes has a point!

 

You're right about the collar though, any fill would need to kept clear of direct contact.

 

Simple enough; if 200mm = <8", that is reasonable for a maple with an exposed/eroded rootzone. As for bracing being a concern due to "admitting defect" that reasoning is worth examination:

 

Many cities and many arborists in both the United States and

Australia are concerned about the spectre of liability associated

with installing support systems in trees. Their fear is that,

by admitting that a defect exists, owners and workers can be

blamed for anything that happens to a tree. However, according

to the USDA’s Urban Tree Risk Management Guide, “Choosing

not to install a cabling and bracing system because of a fear of

liability is not a good decision.” We can’t hide from liability, so

there is no use running from it. It may surprise you to learn that

pruning alone can be interpreted by insurance companies as

admitting liability because a defect exists! Consider the recent

experience of Pete Morris, City Arborist for Laurinburg, NC,

US, who tells us:

 

"This past summer,

a large limb fell from an older oak, damaging a house and a

vehicle. The owner watched from his wheelchair as I assessed

the situation. There was no decay, so it seemed to be a case of

sudden summer limb drop. The insurance company decided

that the need for previous pruning alone should have put us on

alert the tree was hazardous and should have been removed or

at least given special attention. I guess what has us concerned

is most of our older trees have been pruned and cut on for all

kinds of reasons...storm damage, disease, decay, etc. We’ll have

to see how things go from here.”

So in this adjuster’s opinion, the mere act of pruning a tree admits

liability, and every urban tree is hazardous!

[likeitorlumpit]

Simple enough; if 200mm = <8", that is reasonable for a maple with an exposed/eroded rootzone. As for bracing being a concern due to "admitting defect" that reasoning is worth examination:

 

Many cities and many arborists in both the United States and

Australia are concerned about the spectre of liability associated

with installing support systems in trees. Their fear is that,

by admitting that a defect exists, owners and workers can be

blamed for anything that happens to a tree. However, according

to the USDA’s Urban Tree Risk Management Guide, “Choosing

not to install a cabling and bracing system because of a fear of

liability is not a good decision.” We can’t hide from liability, so

there is no use running from it. It may surprise you to learn that

pruning alone can be interpreted by insurance companies as

admitting liability because a defect exists! Consider the recent

experience of Pete Morris, City Arborist for Laurinburg, NC,

US, who tells us:

 

"This past summer,

a large limb fell from an older oak, damaging a house and a

vehicle. The owner watched from his wheelchair as I assessed

the situation. There was no decay, so it seemed to be a case of

sudden summer limb drop. The insurance company decided

that the need for previous pruning alone should have put us on

alert the tree was hazardous and should have been removed or

at least given special attention. I guess what has us concerned

is most of our older trees have been pruned and cut on for all

kinds of reasons...storm damage, disease, decay, etc. We’ll have

to see how things go from here.”

So in this adjuster’s opinion, the mere act of pruning a tree admits

liability, and every urban tree is hazardous!

 

 

I'm not so sure- it sounds plausible but surely many trees are pruned to improve light/ reduce leaves in gutters/ improve view - maybe more reasons that don't in themselves admit that the tree is hazardous.

What I'm saying is the mere fact that you have worked on a tree doesn't mean you have identified a weakness.

As an aside- could you not add a caveat on all invoices that the tree should be inspected say every 2 years after any works to ensure continuing safety. Thereby covering yourself should something happen and also potentially giving you future work.