New Technique for weight reduction of Hazard Tree

RopeShield

RopeShield

Carpal tunnel level member
Location
Ontario, Canada
Stem trace or Girdle limbs, leaders or root flare to a few mm beyond the cambium. Removal of atleast a few rings for efficacy.
Depending on species up to 20 rings will translocate H20. The more effecient rings closest to the cambium and less so progressing further into the heart wood.
Girdling technique creates a gap for the movement of H2O thus reducing the water weight of the tree/limb.

Green log weight and dead wood weight differs enough to warrant the effort?
Less load on rigging gear, crane, ropes, rigging or tie in point etc.
Any unanticipated draw back to this practice?

Is this a viable option for future consideration?
Should this be researched?
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

How long would it take for the tree to exhibit a difference in weight? I guess it would depend on environmental factors that influence transpiration, right? That would be a sight to see---A tree service pulls up, girdles tree with chainsaw, then leaves. "Can't touch that cottonwood till it dries up some!" LOL Something to think about I guess.
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

hummm.... i have always been taught a tree is more brittle after a drought so not to trust it and rig smaller.
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

If you did that then a limb fell on someone or something, well...
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

Ineresting, hadn't heard that before. Would that just apply to twigs and minor limbs?

[ QUOTE ]
hummm.... i have always been taught a tree is more brittle after a drought so not to trust it and rig smaller.

[/ QUOTE ]
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

I suppose if you part of the world experiences that phenomenom of Sudden Limb Drop, it could add to the risk. Thanks for more homework [ QUOTE ]
If you did that then a limb fell on someone or something, well...

[/ QUOTE ]
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

I don't think you would gain any significant difference. How much more wood would you be able to take versus working on a dead tree? Wouldn't that more flexible, live wood, provide a safer environment versus the dry wood.
Perhaps if it was only a month or so so the tree wasn't completely dry, but then again, how much would you gain?

Seem like a good research project...
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

I like the thinking outside the box.
But my first thought is maybe having to later climb a dead or dying tree. I don't like climbing dead or mostly dead trees but my cojones are almost certainly less hairy than some.
But if you are meaning that you would be using a bucket that changes things.
You would have to factor in the cost and scheduling of making two trips at the very least. Plus worrying about premature failures that might come back to haunt you as already mentioned.
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

wow i would never put the word "premature" and "cojones" in the same paragraph.
laughabove.gif
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

It won't make enough of a difference in the short term. When doing restoration work we girdle some of the invasives that we want to keep in the short term (~3-4yrs) for shade. They'll continue to leaf out in the following years with some dieback.

Usually Acer platanoides and negundo in the Don Valley and Humber River valleys in and around Toronto.
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

We used to do this to elms that were hot for DED in the early '90s. Girdle and treat with an herbicide (Kack) that would dry down the tree very quickly. The reason was to catch the beetle brood in the log before they emerged. if you got them soon enough, they would die, thus lowering vector numbers. Usually did this to trees in nautural area where we couldn't get in to remove them right away. Worked ok too. Noticed a marked decrease of beetles on our traps.
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

Thanks for the info and timely to. EAB has moved in around us.
[ QUOTE ]
We used to do this to elms that were hot for DED in the early '90s. Girdle and treat with an herbicide (Kack) that would dry down the tree very quickly. The reason was to catch the beetle brood in the log before they emerged. if you got them soon enough, they would die, thus lowering vector numbers. Usually did this to trees in nautural area where we couldn't get in to remove them right away. Worked ok too. Noticed a marked decrease of beetles on our traps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Green Redwood is Heeeeeevvvvyyyy!!!! Green Redwood is Heeeaaaaaaavvvvyyyy!!!!
#135125 - 07/10/08 09:55 AM (71.231.132.229)

Older post I do not know how to link it could use some ones help? Very Interesting!
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

Doing tree removals on Cape Cod we've seen many Pitch Pine dying in the last few years from Pine Bark Beetles. I've certainly noticed a great difference in weight in trees that have only been dead for one season. They are however quite a bit more brittle. I'd imagine that it would be similar for most species.
In other words, by the time you start to see any real difference in the weight of the wood, your losing integrity in the structure of the tree. If you are dropping the trees or even using a bucket that might not matter.
the other thing is you better hope the client doesn't change their mind about removing the tree.
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

[ QUOTE ]
Stem trace or Girdle limbs, leaders or root flare to a few mm beyond the cambium. Need to remove atleast a few rings to be effective
Creates a gap thus reducing the water weight in the tree prior to their removal.
Similar effect to removal during a drought vs wet season.
What do you guys think about this?
How much water weight can be avoided?
Green log weight and dead wood weight differs enough to warrant the effort?
Less load on rigging gear, crane, ropes etc.
Any unanticipated draw back to this practice?

I am 5'9" nearing 200lbs all suited up so this may help me and few of you big boned Vikings out there!
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

without being politically or publicly appropriate in my next statement, but to the point; you are retarded in that post. You've got way too much time and you should come up with something better than that to ponder. .... yeah, oh well, now you hate me too...
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

Strong opinion. Please can you help a guy? Why is this rXXXXXXd?
crazy.gif


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stem trace or Girdle limbs, leaders or root flare to a few mm beyond the cambium. Need to remove atleast a few rings to be effective
Creates a gap thus reducing the water weight in the tree prior to their removal.
Similar effect to removal during a drought vs wet season.
What do you guys think about this?
How much water weight can be avoided?
Green log weight and dead wood weight differs enough to warrant the effort?
Less load on rigging gear, crane, ropes etc.
Any unanticipated draw back to this practice?

I am 5'9" nearing 200lbs all suited up so this may help me and few of you big boned Vikings out there!
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

without being politically or publicly appropriate in my next statement, but to the point; you are retarded in that post. You've got way too much time and you should come up with something better than that to ponder. .... yeah, oh well, now you hate me too...

[/ QUOTE ]
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

Thats just theXman, you hate him at first, just cause you think he hates you, then you just get used to him.

I think the point he's trying to get across is the same that other buzzers have made: what if the HO changes their mind?, what structural changes have you made?, how long will this process take?, what if the tree fails after you have done this, even if the failure has nothing to with it?
 
Re: New Technique for Hazard Tree Removal.

[ QUOTE ]
Strong opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind thinking outside the box and don't let something I said keep you from posting an idea. An idea might end up not being good, but it might trigger discussion and turn into something positive.

But to answer you.

Negatives are this in order of most important:

1. If tree fails during that time, even though it wasn't from your girdle cut at it's base or limb, you would VERY likely be blamed. "Well, he's the one that came and cut the tree..." Even the customer that wasn't sue happy would surely blame you for the failure.

2. Green weight verses dead tree weight would not save much time in a removal in my opinion.

3. two trips to a location however, takes up too much time.

4. possibly if you take too long, your tree could become hazardous as it dries up.

5. customers or others that hear that you do such a thing, are going to think you are a numb skull, and it might ruin your reputation; if you have a good one.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more negatives if I thought about it a while.

Yes, I come across too strong often on this forum and Classic is quite right.

Oh, on a slightly related subject of precutting. Sometimes during an estimate, if they accept on the spot and there is poison ivy, i get my hand saw and cut the vines. Dried up vines seem to give us less of an outbreak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom