Elm Prognosis?

arthurj said:
Yes that's right it was all one root from 1-5 but a big one! I had t exposed the area from 4-5 in the photos last night
Click to expand...
for what it's worth I THINK I would have only made the 4/5 cuts, and would have left the rest. Perhaps looking at the other root on the back side. What's done is done. Smaller cuts, smaller doses over longer periods of time are much better than gettin er don in one go.
 
arthurj said:
Ok I will is the wound at 1 the only important one since that's the only route to live tissue? Remaining pieces should die over time and degrade?
Click to expand...
Correct, unless grafted where it's unseen, then two wounds. Target proper grade, and what ever else the good BMCA has to say. You know the one that gives cookies
 
#3 looks to be connected to the root UNDER the #1 cut.
#3 is the one I do not understand. It's hard to dig enough to make sure it was only connected to what was cut already with #`1 and 2. Lots of root grafts down there.
#3 is so far from the trunk, what good did it do?
 
#1) Yes tree has root issues YES
#2)Root issues are likely causing the decline ONE FACTOR; NOT THE ONLY CAUSE.
#3)Untreated root issues would likely cause further decline resulting in failure or removal (AKA STUMP) WILD GUESS. IT MAY MAKE LITTLE OR NO DIFFERENCE.
#4 Possible issues beyond visible (photographed) root issues, might result in needed removal or failure (AKA STUMP). WHAT SCENARIO WOULD "REQUIRE" REMOVAL??
#5)Removal of limbs declining wont change poor root condition. (AKA STUMP) TRUE

Missing from your list is your arousal of fear about trees on houses. No evidence of that being a likelihood.

The BMP got the definition of 'girdling root' wrong, violating the A300 standard. It goes downhill from there.
 
guymayor said:
#1) Yes tree has root issues YES
#2)Root issues are likely causing the decline ONE FACTOR; NOT THE ONLY CAUSE.
#3)Untreated root issues would likely cause further decline resulting in failure or removal (AKA STUMP) WILD GUESS. IT MAY MAKE LITTLE OR NO DIFFERENCE.
#4 Possible issues beyond visible (photographed) root issues, might result in needed removal or failure (AKA STUMP). WHAT SCENARIO WOULD "REQUIRE" REMOVAL??
#5)Removal of limbs declining wont change poor root condition. (AKA STUMP) TRUE

Missing from your list is your arousal of fear about trees on houses. No evidence of that being a likelihood.

The BMP got the definition of 'girdling root' wrong, violating the A300 standard. It goes downhill from there.
Click to expand...
Lord god GUY.
#2 yup one factor, but if girdling roots/fill causing decline (very likely, might not be only reason but very probable) and goes untreated likely to cause failure or worsening to the point owner removes tree.
#4 More root issues not uncovered, fill, root loss due to fill, root decay? Basically any other scenario which is not shown in the photos. Not sure how this was unclear.

It's ok to apologize, Guy.. This lowly Cert Arb might understand more than your bumbling, brown nosing Codit does. I don't proclaim to know it all, but sure as hell know more than the BMCA and Arb onsite..
 
#2 yup one factor, but if girdling roots/fill causing decline (very likely, might not be only reason but very probable) and goes untreated likely to cause failure or worsening to the point owner removes tree.
I don't think we can know that it's not just possible but likely. As you say, info is lacking for that. Grafting happens; trees adapt.

#4 More root issues not uncovered, fill, root loss due to fill, root decay? Basically any other scenario which is not shown in the photos. Not sure how this was unclear.
Unclear is the need to *remove*. Just reducing load and improving soil is typically enough. You are listing conditions, not scenarios.

I don't proclaim to know it all, but sure as hell know more than the BMCA and Arb onsite..
Well I gotta agree with that! Drought happened, $200, please, lol.
Not BMCA, but BCMA--now you can pass with 70%...

Still waiting to hear what brought on the trees-on-houses tale.
 
guymayor said:
#2 yup one factor, but if girdling roots/fill causing decline (very likely, might not be only reason but very probable) and goes untreated likely to cause failure or worsening to the point owner removes tree.
I don't think we can know that it's not just possible but likely. As you say, info is lacking for that. Grafting happens; trees adapt.

#4 More root issues not uncovered, fill, root loss due to fill, root decay? Basically any other scenario which is not shown in the photos. Not sure how this was unclear.
Unclear is the need to *remove*. Just reducing load and improving soil is typically enough. You are listing conditions, not scenarios.

I don't proclaim to know it all, but sure as hell know more than the BMCA and Arb onsite..
Well I gotta agree with that! Drought happened, $200, please, lol.
Not BMCA, but BCMA--now you can pass with 70%...

Still waiting to hear what brought on the trees-on-houses tale.
Click to expand...
Shit, Guy, 70% is all it takes? Sticky keyboard, ADHD, and Dyslexia (coupled with the fact I don't really give a crap).

If tree were left alone, house in drop zone, condition worsened. Yes trees adapt, blah blahh.. You read a bit much into that post. You were right quick with throwing down the A300 "bogus" standards... I really don't understand your beef with me on this one. You keep putting words in my mouth. Feel like correcting me on anything else?
 
70% is all it takes? Sticky keyboard, ADHD, and Dyslexia (coupled with the fact I don't really give a crap).
Well it can be marketed effectively, in most markets. (But I also wish the test could have more practice and less words).

If tree were left alone, house in drop zone, condition worsened.
Again, what evidence shows you that the condition will be worsened? It might be bouncing back for all we know, from a snapshot. ass-u-me, guesses make messes, etc. Give trees a chance!
 
guymayor said:
#3 looks to be connected to the root UNDER the #1 cut.
#3 is the one I do not understand. It's hard to dig enough to make sure it was only connected to what was cut already with #`1 and 2. Lots of root grafts down there.
#3 is so far from the trunk, what good did it do?
Click to expand...
Yes cut 3 was only made to remove that section after it was severed from the tree
 
Feel like correcting me on anything else?

I keep asking about the trees-on-houses scenario that you raised in this case. That's what brought this on.
 
guymayor said:
Feel like correcting me on anything else?

I keep asking about the trees-on-houses scenario that you raised in this case. That's what brought this on.
Click to expand...
Tree on house. Hmm Unseen, unknown, poor care,.. We do know tree condition is worsening, we do know trees with fill and trees with girdling roots tend to fail more frequently, we do know these conditions can lead to root decays. We do know house is in range of tree. I would ASS*U*ME that the tree would die of poor care by the local Arb hacks and be turned into a stump before the tree failed. Or the local boys charged to the point where one would be very skeptical bringing in anyone else.
 
We do know tree condition is worsening,
How do we know that?

we do know trees with fill and trees with girdling roots tend to fail more frequently,
How do we know that? How does that apply to a short tree like this?

we do know these conditions can lead to root decays.
I don't see much decay in girdling roots. Decay would tend to lessen girdling, right?

We do know house is in range of tree.
After pruning the dieback? How much more would need reducing to eliminate risk to the house?

I would ASS*U*ME that the tree would die of poor care by the local Arb hacks
What if pruning was specified?
 
I'm done, and not going to take anymore space arguing on Arthur's thread.. go get your ego jollies off elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom