dadio

OK, I'll bite... anyone that thinks those trees could have been dropped from the ground is a moron.. as is anyone that thinks its a good idea to drop a 80' pine tree through a hedge and across a driveway on a $10-20 million estate, as is anyone that thinks its a good idea to climb, cut and rig such a structurally compromised tree, as is anyone that thinks that pine top could have barber chaired with the blue lines wrapped around the trunk, just above the cut, as is anyone that thinks the camera man was in harms way... you can count the 10 paces he took after the fall, to get anywhere near the block.

I would have thought so to, until I watched a slow motion vid of a similar fall.. You can see at 1:45 that the bottom of the step clears the remaining trunk, only catching a loose piece of bark.. that was a bigger step and that top was only fallling with the force of gravity on a front leaner.. And I wasn't worried so much about the grass as this customer has a full time grounds keeper.. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNV5gnZpMSo]falling large tree tops 3.mov - YouTube[/ame]

Not necessarily.. like anything else it just takes some experience and observation.. trial and error.. And I'd expect to use it in many situations where 180º wasn't needed, just enough to turn the tree slightly, 90º or less.. A tree can be spun slightly by using a narrow humboldt and a rolling snipe.. (see fundamentals of general tree work).. I wonder how much more spin could be gained by using a wrapped (yo-yo) tie off.. its going to be fun to find out..

the remaioning stick was 40' and was dropped the opposite way, from the ground in one cut. There was one interesting phenomenon which is fairly obvious when looking at the cut on the ground, yet I didn't catch until I watched the slow motion wide angle a few times.. The piece spun 180º as it fell, leaving the notch facing up.. That has my wheels turning.. might be a nice way to get clearance when there are side limbs interfering with the LZ..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y5_bGt-sL4]throwing a big pine top.mov - YouTube[/ame] Here's the top of a lightning struck white pine getting thrown about 22'. The top was 20" diameter at the cut and somewhere near 35'-40' tall. It was a fun job to pull it off, which I wasn't 100% sure I could do, so I had to explain the situation to the clients, who were most gracious in green lighting the plan.. If you start feeling impatient, the actual throw comes in somewhere after 11:00.. If I hadn't broken up with my girlfriend a week earlier, I'd have been on holiday with her and would have missed this job.. makes it that much sweeter...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAT21iNgask]YouTube - ‪cricket ave pruning.mov‬‏[/ame] a big magnolia, clump of white birch, and large rhodie.. no action, nothing too exciting, though a good example of ornamental pruning if you are interested in that sort of thing..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RdcuNqdPnQ]YouTube - ‪brookwood oak spar.mov‬‏[/ame] yanking a locust trunk out of a hole with the pick up, and falling a straight oak spar.. under 2 minutes..

I wasn't concerned about twist in the hinge before the fall. The main concern there was side lean, which was not apparent. I keep my back cuts 1/2"-1" above the notch on precision falls, unless there is a good reason to go higher... One of the reasons for keeping stump shot to a minimum is that twist in the grain has farther to travel and can eat up more of the hinge with a higher back cut.. Even with so little stump shot, I was surprised at how much twist was still in the grain.. That wouldn't be a surprise on a low cut, but this was at waist level... This is something to keep in mind with the species.. That said, your point about less twist in the middle of the hinge is noted... another perspective would be that the wider hinge allows for a little more twist without compromising the integrity of the hinge on that side.. Who really knows what the right answer is.. perhaps the best thing that can be emphasized here, is that I would not have used this cut if the tree had any side lean... Pulling 180 degrees to the lean, allows for a lot of latitude in technique..

I don't climb on true blue... I know they market it as climbing rope, but that seems 10 years out of date to me... I would have been ok with a standard back cut, but I wanted a little insurance to make sure it stayed in place until I had time to go pick up the camera.. That is also why I told the op to "hold that".. so he wouldn't go until I give him the signal, which is SOP, but I was a little concerned he would pull after I walked away from the tree.. So it would have gone differently if it wasn't getting taped... more later............

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbAT1_EA_2M]YouTube - ‪backleaning maple by house .mov‬‏[/ame] shows a close up of the notch, plunge cut and center plunge to gut the hinge and a few thoughts on the examination of the hinge after the fall. Short little video, 2 minutes..

excuse me.. I meant to say "hinge" instead of "notch" in the above post... Don't know why I can't edit my own posts .. apparently there is a 10 minute time limit on editing..

The question is why???? Why should a notch be 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 or whatever.. Most arbs are only going by their training without really understanding the reasons behind it. The rules here in the US used to be 1/3, but that got changed to a depth needed to make the notch 80% of the width of the diameter at the cut. I've never heard if that is the front, back or middle of the notch, as that can make quite a difference. 80% is often far less than 1/3 diameter. Either way though, it is just a rule and is only needed for people that don't understand the why... Good for training newbies, and it is astounding to me that so many in our industry are so strongly attached to being "right" about this and many other procedures, when so few really understand what is going on.

talked to another tree guy, that runs the most first class operation in the area, and one of the best in the states, or who knows maybe even the world.. Their top climber has come in 6th at the ITCC twice and 8th once.. He said that they looked into cobra, but do not use it because the steel has a greater and more reliable life span, when installed properly.. He also has not found the decay associated with thru bolts to be a concern.. That said, I have found the same thing. The only issue is if the only stem to cable to has an existing column of decay, then its seems that popping a hole right thru the good wood is going to do more harm than good.. That is a very rare occurrence though around here. I do wonder why cobra never really got any traction in this market.. with the price of steel going up, it might be more cost effective now.. I never did like the argument that its easy for one man to do by himself.. Most cables are best set with two climbers around here. One climber tends to want to set the cable where he came make the swing, which is almost always far below where the cable should be.. I wonder about the differences in tree species geographically. Could that have something to do with it.. or are we just having a hard time adapting new technologies.. Some of the best climbers in the work come from the east coast USA, so I doubt that's it, but who knows for sure?

All the talk about cabling from the last thread got me looking for this video that was shot in early spring. Just finished the editing. It shows a medium sized Norway Maple that had a bad cable and failed. Very self explanatory lots of talking.. not much action.. 9 minutes if you want to sit through it... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9WlFPfBQEk]YouTube - ‪lessons from a bad cable.mov‬‏[/ame]

I had better, (or at least easier to get better) positioning for making those cuts on the branch tips than could have been had from rope and saddle. When pruning trees with no central leaders it can be very difficult to reach branch tips at all, and certainly would make pruning many trees in this way, impractical. I put less importance on good targets, when working branch tips.. though I pay a lot of attention when the cuts are on the main stem. Its funny how many arbs that regularly butcher trees, by removing all the lower limbs, (and call it elevating or pruning for clearance) and making large cuts on the main stem, (cuts that will never compartmentalize and eventually destabilize the tree, creating a dangerous hazard or expensive removal) get all righteous when it comes to stubs.. When their practices are so harmful and they are so ignorant about it... Yet they go on and on and on like religious fanatics about stubs... Stubs get a bad wrap IMO.. far better to leave a stub, than to violate the branch protection zone... Which I've seen happen over and over again..... Now this is not referring to any of you... I can only speak about the work and workers here in the US.. but I do question with skepticism anyone that thinks they hit the perfect target cut 99.99% of the time.... And anyone that thinks they can reach the branch tips better from a r&s than from a mewp.. The decision to cable was made during the consultation with the client, and based in part on the species of tree and the size, degree of lean of the two co-doms and knowing what was under that ivy without having to see it.. I was going to need to be up there anyway to remove the large dry lead, so installing a cable was fairly easy compared to removing the ivy. The customer was made aware of the situation and wanted the cable.. As far as pruning goes, I wasn't concerned about the structure of the branch union as a reason to prune, especially because the cable was going in.I was only concerned about the structural integrity of the limbs themselves, as they had problems with decay and vertical cracks, which were apparent from the ground. Lastly , I do not pay much attention to names, nor wish to single anyone out.. But it happens all the time. One good example is the depth of the notch.. here comes some 22 year old kid criticizing my notch because it is not 1/3 depth, when there is a very good reason I cut it the way I did, and the the hinge is perfectly strong enough to do its job without fail... BUT people get all bent out of shape because it wasn't done the way they were taught. They love their rules and just don't don't understand the level of work that has transcended the rules...

Rob, I was not referring to you in any of the above statements, so no need to take things personally. As far as the Cobra, I'll have to get some and learn how to use it.. I've never had a problem with the steel and just use it because I AM familiar with it. That's an area that I could use some improvement in. That said, I have only ever seen 1 cobra or other non-steel cable (support system) in all my years and it was installed poorly and needlessly.. So no one to my knowledge around here uses the cobra.. Might be cool to use. can it be installed mid-stem, or does it need to be installed in a branch union? Would you have gone with the larger stem with the decay, or used the same one I did?? ANy other thoughts,.. problems ... concerns... adjustments? UV degradation.. squirrel chewing etc..

I certainly did not mean to put down the UK's arbs.. Heading cuts and topping cuts need to be distinguished.. a matter of some debate.. Heading cuts have a very valid use in this work. I think that those that are "behind the times", tend to associate heading cuts with tree topping, and thereby miss the opportunity to use heading cuts. I don't put down standards as much as realize their limitations, and find it irritating to have my work criticized because it fails to conform to standards, when there are very good reasons that I do things the way I do. And criticized by people who simply do not understand the level of this work.

This may be a major difference between the US and England... There is no requirement for training in the US. The results are evident in a drive through any suburban neighborhood, especially in looking at the results in line clearance. Thee poor trees have been improperly pruned, with cuts made that violate the living tissue of the parent stem being omnipresent, as is the resulting decay, which often compromised the structural integrity of the tree. In my area of the US, the results of this improper pruning are EVERYWHERE!!! Perhaps the regulation in England, that require every arborist to have a proper training in the importance of making target cuts, result in far less of this type of damage. However, humans are still going to make mistakes.. either because the exact target is hard to determine, or out of laziness/production over perfection... When there is an important cut, (to the tree) I take the time to make the best cut I can. ie on many old dead stubs on mature trees, the living tissue grows over the stub in an irregular way. I take the time to look around to the back and under sides of the cut and peel away the dead bark, to make sure I don't accidentally cut through the living tissue. I've never seen anyone else, even the "best" guys around, do the same, and they make mistakes. Trees have been able to successfully compartmentalize decay from shedding limbs naturally for thousands of years.. they can in general, handle the decay that results from leaving a stub. This phobia of stubs is a misconception in the industry. Knowing when its important to make a good target cut, and when its important to make sure you don't violate the living tissue of the parent stem by leaving a small stub, and when leaving a stub is irrelevant to the tree's health, requires an understanding of trees and an open mind.. you will not find that understanding in a training manual. I actually have written a paper on the subject some years ago, but have not published it yet.

I seriously doubt that the tree will respond with a lot of re-growth, and would bet money that the stubs are going to die, rather than re-sprout new growth. I can go back and check for ya if you like.. I suppose the cobra would have been a good choice for that situation, but I have never used it.. Call me a late bloomer... That said, I use a gas drill and have no problem installing steel... Nor do I question the ability of the cable to support the main branch union for the next 15 years. The cable is high enough that there will be relatively little force on it, and I have no worries about it either failing or breaking out the cabled limbs.

OK, BUT I gotta call it like I see it.. Shigo had it wrong, when he called for perfect target cuts everytime.. In the real world there are plenty of ambiguous targets that even the best trained and most careful arborists are going to get wrong from time to time.. And then there is the human factor.. People are going to do what they do, which is tending to take the easiest path of least resistance. That ends up with reaching, over extending, using a pole pruner from meters away, and making partially blind cuts, etc., when pruning.. In that respect, asking arbs to make perfect target cuts everytime, is just not realistic. And because violating the living tissue of the remaining stem is far worse than leaving a stub to decay (which trees have been dealing with ever since there was a tree), it is better to leave a stub, than risk violating the parent stem's living tissue. That said... All stubs are not created equal... leaving a short stub, on a branch tip, under 1" in diameter, is pretty much irrelevant. The tree will not be better off with a "proper" cut, made in that situation. On more significant cuts made on the main stem, it is well worth the time to make a careful target cut, when there is a clear target. When there is not a clear target, as is often the case, it is better to err on the side of leaving a small stub. Shigo's background was from forrestry and many of his early papers had to do with wood discoloration and decay resulting from pruning/wounding.. This focus on wood value, is much different than the arborist's focus on structural safety.. Trees in general can deal with a good bit of decay, and survive well.. The type of decay that results from leaving a small stub, in general is not the type of decay that causes trees to fail, where as the type of decay that results from violating the tissue of the parent stem can be catastrophic.. Since pruning standards do not account for the size and placement of stubs, and the species of trees etc. , nor do they account for the inevitable human error, I say "I know better than the standards".. If that makes me sound arrogant, then so be it.. Pruning standards are for people that don't understand the "why".. great for training newbies, but very lacking in their ability to be relevant in the wide variety of real world scenarios faced by the practicing arb.. We were all trained in school to just "follow the rules". Do it by the book, conform, don't think for yourself.. So many arbs are stuck on the "rules".. ie ALL STUBS ARE BAD.. I've transcended that.. I think for myself. You can call it a "God complex".. I call it common sense... And ten people telling me different isn't going to change my mind... I'll listen to an intelligent argument, and respond with mine, but there isn't much of that going on here or on other boards.. It is either personal insults and ridicule or simply blind obedience to the sacred standards..

you need to balance out the need to reduce, weight to keep a tree from falling apart, with the harm that pruning does to a tree in decline. If there was no structure or other valuable below, I might have recommended against pruning. That is why I left the one side of the tree alone, just removed deadwood from the other, and only pruned back live branches over the roof..

There is no branch bark collar involved here. The stubs left were on branch tips, not at the parent stem. I thought I explained on the only stub that was left on the main stem, that it was out of reach of the bucket and I would finish the cut when the bucket was moved to the other side of the tree.

That's right.. stubs are better than accidentally violating the living tissue of the parent stem or branch.. Do you really think leaving a short stub, less than 1-2" diameter, on the tip of a long branch is somehow bad for the tree. If so, you've been paying more attention to pruning standards than the trees themselves..

The problem with standards is they have a hard time accounting for the differences in meeting the needs of such a wide variety of species and trees, and situations where the needs of the human/landscape interface can be so different.. Also standards cannot take into account the vast differences in the skill, experience and ability between arborists. And thridly, standards are by definition behind the times. Just as science is constantly changing and progressing, so is the way we do this work. As superior techniques and understanding are developed they must transcend the OLD standards.. Thus standards represent the old, widely accepted norms. Anyone that is progressive and breaking new ground, must necessarily be violating standards.. There are lots of people in this industry that are stuck on standards.. To me, they are useful (to a limited degree) and important to use in training newbies, however, I see their limitations and fortunately have transcended much of that.