guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
Thanks Royce, good post. The cost of pruning, averaged over the time the owners did nothing with it, plus the anticipated duration until the next needed pruning (5+ years) comes out to <$100/year. Of course that duration is just a guess, so it's very conservative. Could be 10+ years. Being on the south side of the house, cooling value is substantial, and other benefits are high as well. The cost of removal would easily have been >$2k. Removal would have increased the risk from the taller red oak adjacent to it. etc. etc.
I sent this proposal based on emailed images, and sold 10 hours' work at the average rate for a 2-man crew in our market. "Assess condition and strength loss of shingle oak. Clear flare and replace soil. Reduce crown in proportion with strength loss.
Assess oak in back, prune per need."
"One of the county officials who was involved with the decision process (and WAS on site) said there was too much decay and that it had probably been topped many times."
It's one thing to hear someone say this, or quote it. It's another thing to pass along such hearsay speculation as "fact", which is what keeps happening here. The only concern I have is misrepresentation of facts. Sit in a witness chair a few times and you may learn that it's not 'whining' to see through BS, and refuse to accept speculation as fact.
Our industry is so anti-topping we get blinded to the ease of restoration, and defensive if someone points to that potential. We have our heads so filled with junk science about imagined 'defects' and the evils of decay, that we forget all we've learned about compartmentalization. Having mitigated several trees >90% hollow from high risk to low risk, I've seen how easy and defendable it is.
Try it, you'll like it!
I sent this proposal based on emailed images, and sold 10 hours' work at the average rate for a 2-man crew in our market. "Assess condition and strength loss of shingle oak. Clear flare and replace soil. Reduce crown in proportion with strength loss.
Assess oak in back, prune per need."
"One of the county officials who was involved with the decision process (and WAS on site) said there was too much decay and that it had probably been topped many times."
It's one thing to hear someone say this, or quote it. It's another thing to pass along such hearsay speculation as "fact", which is what keeps happening here. The only concern I have is misrepresentation of facts. Sit in a witness chair a few times and you may learn that it's not 'whining' to see through BS, and refuse to accept speculation as fact.
Our industry is so anti-topping we get blinded to the ease of restoration, and defensive if someone points to that potential. We have our heads so filled with junk science about imagined 'defects' and the evils of decay, that we forget all we've learned about compartmentalization. Having mitigated several trees >90% hollow from high risk to low risk, I've seen how easy and defendable it is.
Try it, you'll like it!
