Boo Who?

Were there any holes higher in the trunk?
I had two woodpecker holes about three feet apart on a live willow trunk a couple of days ago. The lower hole was spilling out similar looking material since they began excavating the higher cavity.
Not suggesting it’s woodpeckers that low down but if the gano has caused hollowing in the buttress and sending decay up the stem, any disturbance higher up will result in the ‘frass’ piling up in the bottom of the cavity?!
Any small mammal could use a hole like that though... often found a family of voles nesting in the hollow of a rotting pop once it’s gone over, just cut a biscuit and pop it on the stump to leave them with a roof!

 
 
Could be anything that early on

Therein lies the game...

I’m going to throw out cut-leaf sumac...

Walnut

Purple leaf plum

So you know for a fact the same company did all those trees that you photographed?

No I don’t - the first ones for sure because all four trees down the road all done at the same time, the other two were done separately.
It is just such a shame that someone has there tree butchered for whatever reason, and then a neighbour thinks that they must do something to their tree too, so points and says “can you make my tree smaller, ...like that one!” As if it’s now a good looking tree and they would feel good to have one too!

What species? I’m guessing ash.
 
Maidens, never been trimmed, they’ll be fine, if you have to reduce to a certain spec ie. Height/width then I don't see that as too bad.
 
Ash have little inner growth points so sometimes you have to go for shape and wait for spring!
 
(one closest to camera better than the middle one though!)

I know sometimes when working to a spec there are limited options, but these people only have one spec...

...and went round the whole town!

Some more classics discovered today!

 
It’s not really about opinion is it? It’s more about species.
 
Plus ‘panic’ is a perjorative (human emotion) adjective to describe regrowth, does a lime/plane tree panic after its cyclical trim? Is that so bad?
 
 

So it would have to be a hefty reduction to reduce water uptake and desication rate- beyond that of recommendations.
It then does come down to a different question of opinion - can you live with that not very authentic looking oak tree at the bottom of the garden because it has ecological/habitat value but on going cost implications, or do you just be rid of it?

I'm not usually a fan of recommending reductions for the reasons you mention. In this case though I think it would be a more successful method of ensuring the longevity of the tree.

What happens when the tree grows again to the point where the moisture abstraction is posing a substantial risk of subsidence? Keep thinning it?

No that is when you then move on to reducing the tree. A thin should leave a suitable structure for a later reduction according to recommendations. I believe a reduction should be the last resort as it ultimately changes the visual aspect of the tree forever and believe we shouldn’t interfere as much as we do

 

Customers always right though... so reduce a lot more trees than I want to!

I get where you're coming from. I'm of the opinion that well executed reductions don't lead to panic flushing.

I agree, however even the best intended lead shoot that is left will ultimately be chased up by at least one, if not two or more adventitious buds that all produce more leaf cover. More than if it had just been left to grow on in the first place.

If it was my tree, I'd be inclined to reduce it by maybe 15-20 percent and keep it about that size by pruning every few years.  My reasoning being: if it hasn't caused an episode of subsidence at its current size, a reduction may be significant enough to prevent it from doing so in the future.
That way, heave isn't very much of a consideration, the risk of subsidence is lowered, you get more light and the tree gets to stay.
It's not my tree though and I know nothing of the site or its history, but it may be an avenue worth exploring.
 
 

I thought reducing a tree reduces leaf cover short term, but ultimately leads to a larger leaf mass in a shorter period of time than thinning or leaving a tree alone. So I’d say thin the tree suitably to reduce leaf cover and then maintain that. That way not altering the external aspect of the tree and actually reducing the foliage cover for a longer period of time than reducing it.
I can’t remember where I read this so don’t know who’s theory it is, but I am sure someone else can corroborate this...

Strangely there’s a thread on another site about the dangers of leaving lines in a tree for a period of time. 
 
Talk of rodent damage and the like.

This is a very good point - I’d leave a rope in over night but don’t think I’d leave it any length of time. I’d want to reassess the tree and chosen anchor point as part of the climb.
Especially as i guess the OP may be trying to get footage of squirrels!
Also you are enticing other people to hurt themselves by leaving ropes in a tree as people can’t keep their hands to themselves - that or it will all go walk abouts.
Retrieved my rope and left a throw line up through my cambium saver overnight on a dismantle along a quite field boundary footpath - next morning returned to find the cambium save still in place but the bit of string and throwbag had been nicked, so had to go all the way back up anyways!

Is sounds like You climb SRT with a second line in as back up.
All you need to do is put in a false anchor on the main stem wherever you need it. A single Lyon tape sling of a suitable length placed around the tree and then through itself will do the trick. Put a Mallion or karabina on the sling to run your ropes through and you are good to go.
Question is how are you going to get up the tree in the first place?
Do you normally use a throw line to get your ropes through your v shaped anchor?

Saw this little beauty today - was a pretty good looking tree last week - cant even see what their reasoning was considering it is at the bottom of the garden well away from the house.
Now they get to look at this every morning when they open the curtains - good job they got the pro’s in!

It’s only what they want because all the way down the street there are look-a-like trees of all variety and species and they believe it’s normal and how trees should look after the ‘tree surgeon’ has been.
I was going to take more photos, but my eyes started to bleed!

...at least it was removed and not left looking like any of these!
Not in a CA - but who the heck can do this, be proud of their work and ask the customer to pay them for it!

The CA is there to protect the whole perception of amenity value of an area. TPO’s are put on specific trees perceived to be of amenity value in or out of a CA.
If we let people butcher or remove trees within CA’s without permission, the stock within the CA is both devalued and we lose potential trees that should one day go on to be TPO’d.
In this case it is ‘only’ a birch...
I wish I could report all butchered trees - within a CA or not. I work hard at perfecting my art and hate turning a corner and seeing a stubby ballsup of a reduction!

Have you tried this?
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/content/dam/nhmwww/take-part/identify-nature/tree-identification-key.pdf
Not sure how well it does for the slightly more obscure trees - or you could always send them a sample and see what they come back with!

Cut the rings in half then split them - that way you are doubling the amount of splitting, but it would most likely quadruple the amount of cutting the other way around

All I can find on vernix says it’s a shrub or small tree, and that lump isn’t small.
Here are my pics of the pagoda tree - there are definitely similarities. Unfortunately I didnt get a shot end on, but I could always go back

Looks very similar to a Pagoda tree I look a few limbs off last week - but the leaflets seemed smaller and there was no autumn red in them...

Same dark heart wood and ring on latex seeping from below the bark though.