Crown lift too high?

tockmal · Jul 19, 2007

These pics were taken at a job where I was doing a couple of small removals(not the trees in the pictures)

The people in the house wanted more light, I advised against crownlifting as it would make the trees top heavy. I suggested removal of the trees, re-plant with a more suitable species for the site.

They got someone else to do it.

This was the end result(see attached)

The trees are Scots Pine on the left and Norway Spruce on the right.

Is the lift too high?

tockmal · Jul 19, 2007

Another

treesandsurf · Jul 19, 2007

[ QUOTE ]

Is the lift too high?

[/ QUOTE ]

yup. remove and re-plant a better tree for the location, like you said.

jp

Colin · Jul 19, 2007

Palm pines.

NickfromWI · Jul 19, 2007

blech!

Poor trees.

Peter McS · Jul 19, 2007

Thats too much. Lollipops not trees

Tree_Frog · Jul 19, 2007

This crown raising is covered on page 17 Figure 40 in the Evaluation of hazard trees in urban areas. You could show them the book and tell them about the potential falure due to the pruning that was conducted.

Not to mention that the one on the right has a codominant leader and is subject to faliure anyway.

treehumper · Jul 19, 2007

Good point Tree Frog. That really was needed prior to the work being done. Part of the tool bag as it were.

TreeCo · Jul 19, 2007

[ QUOTE ]
Is the lift too high?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is perfect. The customer got just what they deserve.

guymayor · Jul 20, 2007

[ QUOTE ]
No, it is perfect. The customer got just what they deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]Dan that is cold. If you made A Dumb request to a contractor would you want to be treated that way?

If I got that request I would (LITERALLY) point to page 10 of the ISA pruning BMP's--poor taper, cracks, decay, topheaviness...66% live crown ratio should remain. sorry you can't do that dan, cuz you won't pay the $7. I can hear lincoln squealing all the way from atlanta. or see ansi's 25% at a time guideline, but that one is way beyond your budget.

tockmal those trees could have provided some really cool views if they were windowed--did you try to sell that???

Removal

would have been almost as dumb as overraising, imo.

damage_inc · Jul 21, 2007

I vote for windows as it was said. Cut out some whirls, kinda make it oriental looking. Were the clients older people cuz in this area they all think that is the way to prune a tree for light!

tockmal · Jul 21, 2007

The clients were a young couple with kids, the house is 2 years old. The trees are growing over the children's play area.

Both trees had branches right down to ground level.

I don't think windowing/thinning was an option as they were insisting on a more dramatic difference in light.

Removal was the best option...Before the house was built.

TreeCo · Jul 21, 2007

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it is perfect. The customer got just what they deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]Dan that is cold. If you made A Dumb request to a contractor would you want to be treated that way?

If I got that request I would (LITERALLY) point to page 10 of the ISA pruning BMP's--poor taper, cracks, decay, topheaviness...66% live crown ratio should remain. sorry you can't do that dan, cuz you won't pay the $7. I can hear lincoln squealing all the way from atlanta. or see ansi's 25% at a time guideline, but that one is way beyond your budget.

tockmal those trees could have provided some really cool views if they were windowed--did you try to sell that???

Removal

would have been almost as dumb as overraising, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right Guy, that was cold of me!

I had mistakenly thought the original poster had suggested pruning but reading back just now I realize the only option suggested was removal. I agree that the removal suggestion was about as lame as the pruning that was done.

guymayor · Jul 22, 2007

[ QUOTE ]
The clients were a young couple with kids, the house is 2 years old. The trees are growing over the children's play area. I don't think windowing/thinning was an option as they were insisting on a more dramatic difference in light.

[/ QUOTE ]Would they have kept on insisting after they were fully aware of how good those trees would look, and how much dappled light would come through if they were windowed?

Re kids play area, how fun it might have been if the lower branches were lightly pruned, to allow the kids to weave through them!

The coolest tree at the ncsu arboretum is one that allows kids to enter it and walk around the trunk.

Gosh Dan you are surely agreeable today!

MikePoor · Jul 22, 2007

Wow, I wouldn't call that crown raising; I'd call it unfinished removal! Look at how much symplast was removed (way too much to prune in one dose!) They might as well go ahead and plant the replacements right under them.

fastlil1 · Jul 22, 2007

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I wouldn't call that crown raising; I'd call it unfinished removal!

[/ QUOTE ]

2nd that.

tockmal · Jul 22, 2007

[ QUOTE ]

Removal

would have been almost as dumb as overraising

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry Guy, but I'm not going to accept that.

Windowing a Spruce is dumb, ok......the Pine could have been thinned, but the client was adamant that the lower branches should be removed more than half way up the stems.

I refused to do this, they got another contractor to raise the crowns to a silly height.

Whoever did this was a qualified climber as the cuts are good. I suspect they knew the long term effects of over raising these trees, but they bowed to their better judgement and went for the cash.

Why I was asked back to remove some other trees on the property is anyone's guess, but I suspect the client was unhappy with certain aspects of the crown lifting bandit's work.

Treeco and Guy, to call my option of removal, "dumb"....is insulting and childish.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

guymayor · Jul 22, 2007

If the client insisted on half the branches being removed, the client was dumb. Whether or not that dumbness could have been disspelled with better information like showing them the bmp's and the dramatic increas in risk that came with their dramatic increase in light using whatever you have in the uk we will never know.

When I hear tree owners voice idiotic opinions like that I take that as the starting point of decision-making, not the final answer. i'd rather work as an arborist than a vegetation manager, even if it takes time to show them the light (hahahaha).

When those trees break and fall on the house, who will be found liable?

UrbanLegend · Sep 25, 2007

[ QUOTE ]

When those trees break and fall on the house, who will be found liable?

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement could start a whole other string. CYA everyone. Remember that we all got to duck when the Sh!^ hits the fan.

[ QUOTE ]
Why I was asked back to remove some other trees on the property is anyone's guess, but I suspect the client was unhappy with certain aspects of the crown lifting bandit's work.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is done to the trees can not be taken/given back. BUT it sounds like you are still in contact with these clients. Maybe you should try to let them know that what they allowed to happen is detrimental to the trees. Show them the research and standards, and maybe offer your assistance to monitor the trees. Yearly or seasonally inspections.

But then again, maybe the liablity will play a part and one should stay away from another's problem....

Although, Dr Seuss would be proud of those trees

The_REVerend · Sep 27, 2007

"Removal would have been almost as dumb as overraising, imo."

Ya I get what your saying Guy but look what happened to those trees
What is the worse of the two evils?
Sad either way
Rev