Excellent Response

MrTree.....now you are stupid.

I've read you rants and can see you point from this perspective...you are really passionate about your perspective and feel you need to encourage similar perpectives and passions in the industry. All good in principle.

But you proved you don't know jack all by discrediting someone I appparently know better than you.

That is stupid.

Kathy Holzer is incredibly intelligent and passionate about trees and happens to know alot of the theories and philosophies you are so passionate about. Discrediting her without knowing her paints a dark smear across this glorious crusade you are on to promote deeper understanding of trees.

You are being dogmatic and intolerant.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Arborists need to own a chainsaw, not a brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol01.gif
 
Man, that line really lost me too! i can't tell if the author was saying that; or saying that others were saying that; or if he was saying that they were saying that.... It really seemed like the former/ not latter; which then goes against everyone's posts; including his.

i, personally think someone has a persecution complex that becomes a self full filling prophecy. Because once he feels made a target; he strikes back, then becomes a target. All, in all; the whole thread has taken on a twist of being anything but.........."An Excellent Response".

Can we get back on topic; or is that opportunity truly lost?
 
OK -- with grammar set aside (there is still no a single), I will give my interpretation to the article and the responses as requested. Note that this is in an email / open discussion format and seeing as no one (I mean NO one) has given their observation on the article or responses except that they like it or not. I will give you my two cents (even though not asked for).

I agree with Brudi, Tobi and Mrtree that in a scientific article one’s personal opinion should not be giving unless previously proven. I am speaking on the aesthetics issue (aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder). Then again, was this a scientific article or just a magazine article that an editor has to review and re-format to fit the overall magazines’ requirements? Needlessly, if you go personal you may end up getting attacked personally.

Ryan’s article was published to speak upon the installation of cables to protect weak crotches. He cited other literature throughout the article, and a survey done in New England, which concluded that weak crotches were a common defect that caused tree failure. I think that most certified arborist and biologist would agree that weak crotches is an issue that should be address during an inspection or prior to anyone climbing into a tree. Even in the judicial setting “reasonable and prudent” it is important. How cabling is done is the topic I think of this tread? OR maybe it is the attacks….

Anyway, on page 36 of “To Cable or Not to Cable – That is the Question”, Ryan quoted Brudi on when he (Brudi) uses steel cables – “We only use steel cables when crotches show cracks or other signs of pre-damage…”, and then quotes Sherrill’s catalog “…crotches with included bark”. Now I would agree that the use of Sherrill’s catalog is not the best form of literature review, but are we 100% scientific in our format.?. What are the other "pre-damage" issues?

With that said, in Ryan’s article he does speak of both types of systems (static and dynamic) but unfortunately does not go into great detail of when each should be used (maybe somebody else can write an article on when to use each system or re-publish). Dr. Ryan concludes that long-term research on the dynamic system is still needed (did not say it would not work), and that in N. Am. most situations require traditional cabling systems for weak crotches. In reading the article and responses, I conclude that we may need a working definition of how a weak crotch is defined. Possibly there needs to be a consensus between arborist and biologist as to the degree of a “weak crotch”, as there appears to be between the different authors. Plus, keep what looks good to ourselves and our clients.

That was my two cents. Anybody, want to bring this thread back to discussions? or do you just want to attack. Either why this is America and those are my opinions. And no matter what...I love you man.....
smirk.gif


UL
 
Thanx UrbanLegend, I appreciate your analysis. Ed Hayes wrote a field guide, "Evaluating Tree Defects". In it he describes branch unions with multiple stems and unions with cracks or decay as high risk of failure. He describes unions with included bark and no cracks as lower risk. Perhaps it's a place to start. As an aside, Kathy Holzer, Blinky, easyphloem, OTG and Skew have all contributed positively to my development as an ARBORIST. Thanks.
beerchug.gif
coolsun.gif
 
Thanks Happyclimber, I am familiar with the guide and some of the others, but I was wondering if there is a way or reason to use one system over another keeping the different degrees of risk in mind. What would the lawyers say is/was the best to use? I hate that we have to live in "fear" of being sued, but if there was a guide to when to use which system--might help to curve or combat against lawyers that <font color="red"> may not </font> know the proper structure and/or mechanics of a tree.

I have not had the great fortune to have met most of the others you mentioned but I'm sure you are an excellent arborist, just like the others. Then again, maybe I have met the others....
grin.gif
 
If only there was an arborist who worked in the field who also had the credentials to test and comment on a cabling system and on the particulars of that system such that they could teach us all something...That not being the case, I will refer to hear-say and conjecture. There was an incident that I heard about from a coworker. It goes like this, elms near Duluth,MN were cabled using cobra, Big trees, big storm, many failurs of lower trunk, no failure of the cables. I know that it doesn't paint a clear picture. I know that it doesn't leave anywhere to go regarding the question, "Static?, Dynamic?, Combination of the two?" It does however suggest that perhaps the decay was so severe that no amount of care (short of removal) would have prevented failures. This seems to be a relevant example of the difficulties faced by people who are currently trying to grapple with the questions raised by UrbanLegend's analysis of Ryan. Customers don't want to pay for an experiment on the industry's materials. They usually will want to go with what is sold as that which works best. Does anyone in MN or nothern WI know anything about these elms or the storm occurence? Perhaps there is some input from a scientist who knows something about tree structure and physiology? Perhaps not...
thinking.gif
 
Nice recovery, people!

Hayes and Brudi have gone into some depth on the degree of risk in forks. The BMP's also I believe agree that static is called for in the case of cracks or much decay. Clients pay for our most reasonable and prudent approach to their trees.

"Dr. Ryan concludes that long-term research on the dynamic system is still needed (did not say it would not work), and that in N. Am. most situations require traditional cabling systems for weak crotches." I think this view needs some more support (tee hee), and I am encouraged that research on this is taking place at U Mass.

As for southern racists, I'm of canadian heritage and Blinky is from the deep south, but we both love all ethnicities. :) And I just met easyphloem today, and expect to climb with him tomorrow--arborists without chainsaws! Imagine!. He had no weapons verbal or otherwise and seems to be an easyphloeing guy.

Spydey again you nailed it, and this time quite coherently!

The original response to the article here. I agree more work needs to be done to streamline the criteria and the decision-making process on support systems. It is being worked on.

Dear Editor,

"When I read in H. Dennis P. Ryan III, Ph.D.’s article on cabling (July 2007 issue) that “you shall use a lag instead of an eyebolt in a decayed limb”, I reached for my ANSI Support Standards. I’m no expert on the subject, but common sense told me the opposite was true. Sure enough, ANSI said “Lag-threaded hardware shall only be installed in sound wood.” This is confirmed in the BMP’s, which the article listed as a reference. Dennis seems to have it backwards, or there was a typo or an editing error. TCIA typically does an excellent job upholding ANSI, so it was surprising to see this slip.
The caption to the first picture, of an ash tree with included bark, states that “…without support it will fail.” It’s important to look at tree risk objectively, without exaggerating our knowledge of what will happen. It was also disappointing to read the author’s opinions that synthetic ropes are “ugly”, while “a steel cabling system …is not visible to most people”.
Steel cables are easy to see, and ugly is in the eye of the beholder. It’s not clear whether the author’s aesthetic bias indicates a deeper prejudice against dynamic cabling. In any case, what place does this degree of subjectivity have in a technical article? I hope that when you print an article on dynamic systems it will have fewer errors, and more objectivity."

So anyway I got my wish with Detter's work. To his credit Dr. Ryan made a respectful response. It will be interesting to see how his research at UMass is set up, and how it turns out. Some of us are smarter than one of us, All of us are smarter than some of us.
 
What Guy said about more research rings a bell with me.

I'm not "too hip" on investing too heavily in things that are not time-proven.

Reminds me of how some tree or plant varieties get planted, only to discover some surprises later down the line.
 
As any participant in this thread, or newcomer like me, can see, I've been busy at the keyboard again. There is no place for the nasty personal attacks that had gone on in this thread. If many of these things would have been said face to face it might have erupted into a bench clearing brawl. Since everyone can sit anonymously in front of their monitor there is no reperucssion...unless you have access to the Moderator Key.

If you want to pick a fight take it off line and away from Treebuzz.
 
Tom, I appreciate your desire to keep things civil here, but while some of the posts were pretty useless, I'm not sure so many had devolved to the point of necessitating deletion. But, it's not my place, and I appreciate your trying to keep things cool.
As to the topic at hand, I suppose the discussion is about static vs. dynamic cables, the side on which Dr. Ryan falls obviously leans towards static with invasive hardware. It's interesting how Andreas Detter's article in the September issue leans the other way, while both stances are about as unsupported (couldn't resist). There is alot of speculation based on understanding of biomechanics, but this is inconclusive. I'm interested in seeing what the research bears out, since there really is not very much substantial comparison data yet (not that I'm aware of, does anyone else have any good sources?). I did not like either authors choice of exemplary photographs; as someone mentioned, in Ryan's article stating that the ash pictured "will fail" was an overly-confident assertion, and in Detter's, showing static cables that had obviously been improperly installed (or that had long since stopped functioning properly) as proof of the shortcomings of static systems was misleading. It seems in reality that both systems can be effective in different circumstances, and both have strengths and weaknesses in any circumstance.
One thing I wonder is whether static cables will continue being recommended for all split stems. I understand the reasoning, but there are many variables in split stems (like everything, I guess) such as length and grain orientation of the split, verticalness of stems, and so on. In some trees it seems like you would almost be creating the situation for a neutral plane fault, though this is only a guess. Likewise, choosing between the two systems may be more influenced by how many stems are being cabled and what angles and orientation they are placed in relation to one another and the weak forks. For example, a single static cable between two more or less equal vertical leads does not inhibit motion except in one direction, the direction against the pull of the cable. Leads are, in general, affected by the same winds and tend to move mostly in unison with those winds. This may be different with leads of different sizes and heights that may have differing forces and oscillations. Multiple leads being cabled with statics creates a crown that, it seems, would move more as one unit and flex more at the trunk.
The "karate" effect? How often does that actually happen in properly installed static systems? The image that Detter used to illustrate certainly didn't even look like the product of "karate", that is, the sudden force of movement stopped by a cable(which is my understanding of the concept). Well, not exactly. It looks like a huge diagonal decayed lead with an old cable that had become far too low as the crown grew, creating a lack of flex in that decayed stem at the point of the cable. I know that the lack of flex would be slightly lessened by a dynamic cable, but any cable installed at that low height would not do much to stop failure.
Again, though, all of this is observational speculation for the most part. I'm waiting on some good data.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Reminds me of how some tree or plant varieties get planted, only to discover some surprises later down the line.

[/ QUOTE ]Bradford pear comes to mind...

Sean the letter got over 10 tweaks I'm sure...when 28,000 or so are going to read something it's good for it to make some sense.
blush.gif


The All of us final phrase I've heard from several people. A mnemonic for humility.

wink.gif
 
So I have noticed on the packageing of Cobra there is a disclaimer to the effect of this product is not to be used on trees with visable flaws or some such. Does that mean that rigid systems are ok for these trees. It seems most trees that I cable do have flaws visable. I always am worried about liability on cabling jobs anyway.
I see alot of posts deleted on this thread....
Am I the jailhouse Arborist? I thought only a few knew!
 
Tom, It does seem to beg the question-"Why would I cable trees I don't see any flaws in?"
I understand everyone's concern about liability-I have some too but ultimately I simply make no guarantees other than that I will install the system and yes such an installation would increase my peace of mind if I were living under/around said tree. I usually state "The only way to be sure that something doesn't fail or fall from a tree in the future is to remove the tree now. Only you (tree owner)can make that decision." I have no problen stating whether I would personally be worried if the tree were mine I just make no claim to prophetic abilities.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So I have noticed on the packageing of Cobra there is a disclaimer to the effect of this product is not to be used on trees with visable flaws or some such. Does that mean that rigid systems are ok for these trees. It seems most trees that I cable do have flaws visable. I always am worried about liability on cabling jobs anyway.
I see alot of posts deleted on this thread....
Am I the jailhouse Arborist? I thought only a few knew!

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's for a fact, it may mean using Cobra on a tree could satisfy merit badges within the tree industry enthusiast group, but, seems like a 100% guarantee of getting nailed with financial liability.

Seems that it wouldn't matter what any arborist standards book said. Any homeowner, lawyer, jury or judge would probably wonder why an arborist used a product contrary to it's label.

Would that be a "disclaimer"? It almost sounds like a form of installation instructions.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reminds me of how some tree or plant varieties get planted, only to discover some surprises later down the line.

[/ QUOTE ]Bradford pear comes to mind...

...

wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]


At our end, that's one.

They still approve it on city lists, although most people or the city, don't have the time to do the exceptionally high level of pruning needed to correct or eliminate defects.

Another tree, was flowering plum (supposedly fruitless) which accounted for scores of stained sidewalks and carpets in houses due to the plums (the magic plums) which dropped all over the place and got squashed and tracked-in.

The city of Tualatin, Oregon, got financially hammered on that one. The ended up willing or having to remove all as a result of legal pressure.

In the long-run, cities get money from citizens, so everyone there will end up paying for the foolishness.

The foolishness being, doing a lot of something that is not "decades-proven". I'd say 15 to 20 years is a minimum for understanding.
 
[ QUOTE ]

The foolishness being, doing a lot of something that is not "decades-proven". I'd say 15 to 20 years is a minimum for understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]O yes, it would be great if we could all be protected from change.
crazy.gif


Mario I hope you agree that doing something new is the only way to know if it works.
 
Cabling has been understood for a LONG time and look at how many examples of wrong systems, materials and configurations we see.

I still stand by my words...bad cabling systems will save more trees than none...I've seen that after MANY storms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom