Tree Inspecting on the Net!

[John Hancock]

Here you go, been down and finished it off

 

Guys, guys, there was no photo-shop involved. Dean is the new Photo-king!

 

I can understand why they spec’d that job, but personally I don’t think the hazard has been eliminated, yes its been reduced with the reduction of the lever-arm and sail area but that tree will put a lot of re-growth, very quickly and also will keep laying down annual layers.

 

I’d have felled it.

[Highland Forestry]

Problem with that John, IMO is thatopening up the middle of the crown like that has created more leverage on the outer stems.

If I had been asked to cot that tree to that spec I would have refused to leave it looking like that, I would have tried to persuade them to top it level right across rather than leaving it like that, re-growth or not it won't eliminate the original problem.

[John Hancock]

You have a point, its an awkward one alright! The branches you see in the background are from the neighbouring trees. The tree that was worked on was entirely crown reduced by approx 90%. They were poor stock and should have been thinned out years ago, and what’s worse - I’ve got to drive past it every morning!

[bob]

looks like skyhuck got some long range fuel tanks fitted

[Mesterh]

They really should be shot for that for a couple of reasons IMO.

 

1. Its looks awful!

2. Should set a decent standard and do a good job since its in plain view of Joe Public.(Why can they do this but not allow it for a customer with a TPO???)

3. It would have been quicker and therefore cheaper to fell.(imo)

4. it will have to be monitored and re-preuned regularly at more expense.

[Highland Forestry]

You have a point, its an awkward one alright! The branches you see in the background are from the neighbouring trees. The tree that was worked on was entirely crown reduced by approx 90%. They were poor stock and should have been thinned out years ago, and what’s worse - I’ve got to drive past it every morning!

 

 

Just looked at the photos again.... I can see it now, before you said about the crown reduction it looked ot me like they had topped out the middle of the crown and left the long outer stems..

I would have done exactly the same to be honest, a good hard crown reduction BUT I do think they should have done the whole lot rather than just the one tree and maybe not as much as 90%!! Something like a 60% reduction would have left it a better shape...

 

Why didn't they do the neighbourng trees as well???

[Heads up]

If they(who ever they are) wanted it retained then i would have said pollard to say 12ft. Not ideal but is a short term fix with retention of the tree. But with those crappy unions it should be a fell and replant.