treeseer

Haha no, I was not the climber in those cases but the contractor/spec writer. That experience, and an inclination to follow BS 3998 etc. to get consistency, spurs the spec-writing effort. Tell 10 arbs to 'fix the tree' and you would get 10 different jobs done.

Yeah sorry the first box is a 'what if' and does not belong there. And the part about the 80% bark in retrospect does not work. 'crown clean--decisions by climber' does not work because A. the work required goes beyond cleaning and B. Different climbers make different decisions, and not all of those are the best.

Silver maple, but could it work for most any species? Is this wording effective for proposals or work orders?

Not unusual here for Kd to grow mid stem But not common Often initiated by tearout wounds or too big a pruning wound Unrelated to basal conditions This points to Need to use binocs when assessing Maybe if you document the wounding/rot connection And lack of same in neghbors you can spare them the chop

What's the objective? 6' odd a 20-25' hedge does not sound like much.

Excellent review; agree on all points. The method of pruning seems to boil down to honing ones instinct by applying personal insights. Saccade or deconstructing perception into snapshot-like bytes is an insight that was well developed and a flash for me; great stuff. Climber-groundie POV communication was also nice. Could be a separate book/section on its own, fleshed out even more. Can it or can it not be used to communicate specifications? How is it compatible or not w BS 3998? Examples convince more than syllogisms alone. The before-after images told good stories. How can this method be replicable aka reliable, valid? If 10 arborists were to reckon where the forks with 'growth phase changes' on 10 trees, how much agreement would there be?

The way I read it, it's different than drop-crotching in that the cuts are much smaller and more numerous; i.e. better for the tree.

Balderdash. These officers; what are they in favor of?

that being 10 years ago; have gone to half strength hydrogen peroxide, to targeted areas, After rinsing with clear water. Then drenching adjacent bark with phosphite.

What part of BS 3998 indicates this?

Why not bid to do a proper cabling job? Materials are ~50 pounds and last 30+ years Rigguy, Inc >> Solving Your Challenges Through Innovative Solutions Included bark should not be fatal, too easy to fix.

As with risk perception, cost of works and inspections can be exaggerated. The steel is warrantied for 30 years.

Or just CYA, covering one's aspirations for avoiding liability. A fool's errand, and a lazy conclusion. Is he familiar with the process known as pruning?

Will anyone else confess to using a stethoscope? When no one is looking, of course. Capital advice re clearing/recalibrating. first quiet the drunken monkey.

"if it poises a danger to kids now or in the future it's gotta go." If this is true, kids will have to grow up without trees. But wait--cars are a danger to them too, so they gotta go. Kids can die from bee stings, so get rid of all those flowers too! Perception of risk is exaggerated here. Kids don't play under the tree during storms, when failures are more likely. Target rating is Zero when occupancy is Zero. Pruning hazardous branches is also a form of admitting there's a problem with the tree. If you don't know what you're doing, either learn how or yes, recommend an arborist or a consultant. If you do know how to work to BS standard, just do it. When installing brace rods, it's amazing how cracks can close by turning the nut. Any increase in decay, AND increase in response growth, can be monitored and adjusted for in the future.

Is it slime flux, or frothy flux? In either case, it is well worth the time to clean away dead and infectious tissue. It can and does kill cambium. Is this in beech, and close to the ground? Then likely frothy, a more pathogenic condition than slime flux. Often found in association with poor cultural practices, aka dirt on stem. Attached an early look at frothy flux, before it was called that. Ooze in the News from TCI Magazine 09-04.pdf

"Given that it appears to be a mature pollard that is lapsed(hard to tell for sure,but likely?)it seems a pretty harsh spec,and could well contribute towards early decline. Id be interested to know the TOs reasoning behind such a heavy reduction." +1 A limb snapped off, so the whole tree gets whacked in half? Your concern about big wounds is well taken--rot and starvation will not make that tree any safer.

Brace the split leader with rods, after drawing the 2 together with ropes. If the other forks are bad then cable them with steel and fasten with Rigguy, Inc >> Solving Your Challenges Through Innovative Solutions Thus supported, pruning needs would be minimal.

"No-one yet has mentioned t/r ratios. The 3rd post did. Bond's study debunked t/r for any tree >30" "That might be a good way of trying to quantify the residual strength. After all, if one is approaching the assessment (even retrospectively) as a VTA, the third stage is estimating the strength of the remaining parts. t/r ratio is part of the toolbox." Yes, but unfortunately it does not work all that well. No intent to be harsh to OP; the bibliography was meant to be helpful.

"looking at those stains on the lower butt might be worth you looking into Dr Lee Klingers protocol." Tony, how to suss out whether those shiny black droplets are a sign of Armillaria sp., or something else? A trunk drench with calcium was the protocol i recall, inspired by early americans grinding oystershell and applying the paste to oak trunks. Calcium fert also recommended in Diseases text by Sinclair. David, the cables have been in quite a while (5-10 years?) judging by the weathering; will enquire how long. 8 or 10 of them. It looks overengineered, until one gets a sense of how the stems are about to come apart. ~3" wall on a 127" trunk; not much. The conk in the pruning wound yes phellinus, by the appearance of what's left of it. Sun glare blurred the other pic of the conk on the bark...I'm hoping to see it again next month.

While assessing this champion red oak we were woefully inattentive re conks. All I got is these pics; the rest of the tree is here https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nvnpabw47ivvhwl/ggLMQJET_v

Here's an 11-page bibliography; knock yourself out: http://auf.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=185&Type=2 all trees have decay. Your fight with the city sounds quixotic. Pics would help.

It's a very high risk, if the value of the tree is considered. That's the trouble with 'target ratings', blind to tree value. Through-cabling with Rigguy, Inc >> Solving Your Challenges Through Innovative Solutions cheap and easy and minimal wounding.

Agreed re bud proliferation, indeterminate cause. A light probing should confirm lack of dead tissue, so it's strictly speaking not a canker. "3.5 canker area of dead cambium and overlying tissues killed by a pathogen" (the ISA def is 'sunken dead area') Treatment suggested might be to keep that fork above clean, and monitor. You don't want to treat it like a canker: 8.5 Cankers Where an active canker has developed around an injury, and if treatment would be of benefit either in reducing the expansion of the canker or in reducing the production of inoculum, the dead tissues and a surrounding margin of apparently healthy bark should be removed with a sharp blade. Sufficient healthy bark should be left intact to maintain adequate translocation of sap. Wood should generally not be removed in order to eliminate a canker pathogen. Such action may, however, be attempted according to specialist advice if it is ascertained that the pathogen is one of a number that can spread in the outermost part of the sapwood. Care should be taken to avoid the transmission of pathogens (see 4.3)." viewed from abroad, it's strange to see UK standards outlining a simple step that is often needed, but seldom done, in the UK or anywhere.