Large Cedar Dilemma

[sloth]

You lot are funny, especially you Mountain Man.

 

Don't encourage him!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...even if he does have a good point or two now and then

[Jesse]

We've just booked in a dismantle/removal of a large mature cedar. Tree is about 150 yrs old and in great shape. There are no preservation orders on it, the new owner of the property simply wants it gone.

Because of our charitable status and the work we do the customer is keen for us to do the work and he is paying a (very) good price for the work.

We are not short of work and business is good. I really don't like the idea of removing a beautiful healthy tree. If we don't take the job then another firm will do the work so the tree is coming down one way or another.

What would you do?

 

Sorry not read all the posts, my take on it. If its got Amenity Value, have a quite chat with you TO, just ask for his opinion, if hes worth hes salt he wont cause you any problems, if its out of view just do the checks and take it down, dont loose any sleep about it.

[treeseer]

Stubby, I suppose the point I was trying to make is it is important to find out what the clients reason is for wanting a tree removed.

 

The reasons I can think of are:

 

1. Nuisance (both annoyance i.e. excessive shade, leaves, damaging a structure etc and in the legal sense)

 

2. In the way of something i.e. a new building or driveway

 

3. Suppressing a better or more important tree.

 

4. Risk of harm or damage from the tree or parts of the tree failing.

 

I'm sure there are others but that will do for now.

 

All four are perfectly valid reasons. However, the fourth (Risk) is probably one of the most misunderstood. Many people do not understand that in order for a tree to pose a significant risk there has to be a target i.e. something significant that it will hit, the size of the part that fails has to be big enough to cause harm or damage and there has to be a high likelihood of that part actually failing. Consequently, we as arborists are asked to remove trees that are thought to be dangerous, but aren't.

 

Tree surgeons that remove trees that are perceived by the public to be dangerous, but in reality do not pose a significant risk are risk entrepreneurs i.e. they are taking advantage of peoples fear of trees....it is important that we find out the true reason behind why people want trees removed, so we don't remove trees unnecessarily!

 

Absolutely, any salesman should find out the client's motivation behind the request. This just helps guide future sales! Discussing with the client their reasons for wanting it removed and the different options that are available, is certainly the best way of dealing with the situation.

 

Who said crown reduction was bad??? MM you made that up.

[Mountain man]

I read on here from our friends in the north that Leeds city council have stated that ALL crown reductions will be refused out of hand.

I have noticed on here that younger, more recent college leavers, are more likely to be the

"Fell it and plant something more suitable" school of thought. (Picked up from the lecturers doubtless)

[Mountain man]

Addendum for TREESEER.

If you use the search function and punch in CROWN REDUCTION as a thread title started by COOP you'll find what I was referring to.

Interested in your thoughts.

[treeseer]

Addendum for TREESEER.

If you use the search function and punch in CROWN REDUCTION as a thread title started by COOP you'll find what I was referring to.

Interested in your thoughts.

My thought was the thread was all over the place. It seems there's been some bad work and bad overreaction in Leeds; here's hoping they can get back on track.

Specs are not hard to write; here's a US spec

Give Trees a Chance!

Does retrenchment pruning go beyond the ANSI A300 Tree Care Standard?

No. Retrenching is 100% within the A300, when the objective is established, the requirements or “shalls” are met, and specifications are communicated. Standard Operating Procedure:

 

SCOPE: An oak that is 6’ wide at the base. ~5’ of that is hollow. Extensive root damage.

OBJECTIVE: Reduce the load and the risk by retrenching the crown. Lower maintenance.

SPECIFICATIONS:

1. Remove all dead branches >1” diameter.

2. Reduce downward and horizontal segments of overextended branches, clearing the branches below by 2’-4’. Cuts <3” to upright laterals, <8% total foliage

3. Thin crowded branches back to the collars. <4% total foliage, <3” cuts

4. Reduce declining leaders 3’-6’. Smallest cut possible, near vigorous growth or buds.

5. In an area between 3’ and 20’from the trunk, use air/water tool to make holes 18” apart, >2” wide and >12” deep. Force 50% compost/50% soil conditioner under pressure into the holes, in effect brewing compost tea on site. Mulch with 2” woodchips.

[Hodge]

Logs are staying, brash is coming out. (If we do it)

House has been unoccupied for years and is about to be renovated so making a mess and minor damage isn't an issue,

 

 

Phew, that will be a better job then

[Hodge]

Today I took down a beech, maybe 100 or more years old, client was worried it may fall and crush his stables. It almost certainly wouldn't, but it worried him, now it's down and he's no longer worried.

I could of stood there during the pricing and "educated" him, told him about lifting, thinning and the evils of crown reduction but he wanted it out, so I did it. I guess I have no moral compass.

 

 

If you didn't do it someone else would, money is best in your pocket.

[daltontrees]

Yes but only after you've ascertained that the tree is actually within falling distance of the house, is large enough to actually penetrate the structure of the building and after explaining all the other options available i.e. crown reduction to reduce wind load etc. surely?

 

Pearls before swine on this forum. MOst people on here will use the owner's initial desire to remove the tree as a way of making money. A few will make just as much money by doing a careful and complicated crown reductiond that achieves the same purpose for the customer. One either cares about trees or one care about ones' own financial situation. It's not wrong to cut down a tree like this in any legal sense or even a moral sense, its just business, But the only people I respect are the ones that have a business ethos that includes making sure the customer fully understands all the options before you start cutting. If he says yeah I know all that risk argumet, I just want it gone, then it goes. But if he is just a bit worried about it, a proper assessment may reassure him that nothing needs done or that pruning is a better option.

 

And there's the problem. If retention is acceptable on an assessed risk basis, the customer's not goig to rely on some contractor's verbal reassurance. A written report backed by qualifications, experience and insurance is what is required. There's few contractors who can and will give that for nothing.

 

Just as with builders, it is a myth that tree contractors (especially the ones who rather fancily call themselves tree surgeons as if they are treating rather than killing trees) can be trusted to advise the public about the right thing to do for trees. They are largely just money-making businesses.

[Hodge]

My thought was the thread was all over the place. It seems there's been some bad work and bad overreaction in Leeds; here's hoping they can get back on track.

 

Specs are not hard to write; here's a US spec

 

Give Trees a Chance!

 

Does retrenchment pruning go beyond the ANSI A300 Tree Care Standard?

 

No. Retrenching is 100% within the A300, when the objective is established, the requirements or “shalls” are met, and specifications are communicated. Standard Operating Procedure:

 

 

 

SCOPE: An oak that is 6’ wide at the base. ~5’ of that is hollow. Extensive root damage.

 

OBJECTIVE: Reduce the load and the risk by retrenching the crown. Lower maintenance.

 

SPECIFICATIONS:

 

1. Remove all dead branches >1” diameter.

 

2. Reduce downward and horizontal segments of overextended branches, clearing the branches below by 2’-4’. Cuts <3” to upright laterals, <8% total foliage

 

3. Thin crowded branches back to the collars. <4% total foliage, <3” cuts

 

4. Reduce declining leaders 3’-6’. Smallest cut possible, near vigorous growth or buds.

 

5. In an area between 3’ and 20’from the trunk, use air/water tool to make holes 18” apart, >2” wide and >12” deep. Force 50% compost/50% soil conditioner under pressure into the holes, in effect brewing compost tea on site. Mulch with 2” woodchips.

 

 

That's all well and good but we're in England not the US, if I go to a customers house to look at a tree then there is a reason they have called me, some ask what would you advise and some ask how much to remove this. If I can offer advice on the 120 year old oak that they want a Heavy reduction in then I can only advise against it and offer other solutions but at the end of the day I will carry out what they want as I have a living to earn, if I baffle them with technical jargon etc they will just get someone else in as they didn't have a clue what I was on about. Depending on the attitude and personality of the customer determines how I play the situation. I would never take advantage of vulnerable people with trees but if they want it out I will oblige.