Old ideas or good rules

[KevinS]

http://www.shamrocktreeservice.com/tree-risk-assessment/

A couple pics down is the 'hazard tree diagram'

After reading some of the different threads on here it gets you thinking about getting outside the rule box. If you look through this picture is it everything that makes a tree a hazard? Or are some of these things old thoughts and maybe not as bad as once expected?

 

[Tom Dunlap]

For quite a while risk management discussions have edited the word 'safe' out of use.

Don Blair has said:

The only safe tree is a stump.

 

[Leroy]

The only safe tree is a stump.

That's a good one. I'll remember that!

 

[guymayor]

It'd be good to get outside the 'defect' box, and inside the 'tree strength' box. You're better off selling high value growing assets, not just getting rid of perceived problems. As you note, that box is old, and not all those features indicate strength loss.

O and X2 on avoiding the "S" word.

And a stump is a tripping hazard, and a sign that all the adjacent trees carry a higher risk, now that their co-supporter is gone.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Yup...stumps are parts of trees...still risky!

 

[KevinS]

Yup...stumps are parts of trees...still risky!

Grind 'em and grass 'em. While I see benefits to saving old trees old stumps are another story.

 

[KevinS]

It'd be good to get outside the 'defect' box, and inside the 'tree strength' box. You're better off selling high value growing assets, not just getting rid of perceived problems. As you note, that box is old, and not all those features indicate strength loss.

O and X2 on avoiding the "S" word.

And a stump is a tripping hazard, and a sign that all the adjacent trees carry a higher risk, now that their co-supporter is gone.

I forget who did the talk possibly Gilman (not 100% on that) but he said that branches with sharp bends are just fine. He used sprouts and the giant redwoods as an example and it made good sense