I don't spike prunes at all, but I look at the work Gord does and see that there are times when deviation from best practice is warranted...windfirming on cutblocks etc. I agree with the others who say that there are situations aside from aerial rescue which justify using spikes on a retention tree. I feel this industry is plagued by dogmatic assumptions and often times we stagnate and get into disagreements because one party feels the need to assert its superiority over another.
Zeb, I agree that spiking residential prunes is generally poor practice, but as jeff-r points out, what if the tree is slated for removal, but the client doesn't have the budget for the removal at the time, but will pay for some hazard mitigation (hangar removal...etc)?
In your case it seems your competitor uses spikes on trees which they have no business spiking and gain a production advantage by it. This sux, and will only change by educating the customer...not by whistle blowing and lambasting them on the internet. Unless you can somehow manage to create a bylaw or law which prohibits spiking live trees...in the PNW...GOOD LUCK!
Trees are infinitely varied and the situations in which we as arborists find ourselves applying our trade can conflict with what we have been taught. There is no 'one size fits all' approach to tree care.
Consider topping, we all know its bad, but what is topping? It seems that one can make heading cuts back to a node, which looks very similar to topping, but it is not technically topping. So, a veteran tree which has been headed back to a node can to a greenhorn seem like a topped tree. He takes a vid, posts it on the internet calling the company responsible hacks and so on, and it turns out it was Guy Meilleur performing retrenchment? Where does it end?
So, perhaps there are situations in which spiking up a tree is acceptable? Consider thick barked trees like mature firs, or redwoods.
All I'm saying is that when you back yourself into a corner, you generally aren't seeing the whole picture.
