guymayor
Branched out member
- Location
- East US, Earth
Public comment opened Nov 20th...a well-kept secret! TCIA runs the show, but failed to put a notice in either their Dec or Jan issues. Anyone who wants to slog through the legalese will see this draft is a step backwards from 2008's revision in some ways. The unscientific concept of 'heading cut', and the corollary 1/3 guideline, is pushed more prominently than in the present, 2008 version.
This draft is biased against the pruning of mature trees, as in "6.3.2 Reduction cuts should be made to live lateral branches large enough to assume the terminal role." The typical purpose of pruning mature urban trees is load reduction, so it AVOIDS having one lateral branch assume the terminal role.
"6.3.3 Reductions cuts made to live lateral branches at least 1/3 the diameter of the branch being removed should be preferred" Why? In every case? The following section on 'heading cuts' lumps specified reduction to small laterals or buds together with internodal whacking.
The differences are obvious and important. Smearing them all together is biologically wrong, but it seems to suit an economic agenda. etc., etc. Arborists who work with older trees are encouraged to consult the EU and UK and German standards.
Unlike the Z, the A300 is pay-to-play. Committee members explicitly weigh the benefit of any proposed changes against the cost of revising training materials. Innovation is not welcomed, so principles from the 1980s get rehashed. Jan 4 is the DEADLINE for sending in comments. Attached are my present thoughts, but I am open to correction!
Pelorus suggested this poll, so if you don't like it, talk to him!
This draft is biased against the pruning of mature trees, as in "6.3.2 Reduction cuts should be made to live lateral branches large enough to assume the terminal role." The typical purpose of pruning mature urban trees is load reduction, so it AVOIDS having one lateral branch assume the terminal role.
"6.3.3 Reductions cuts made to live lateral branches at least 1/3 the diameter of the branch being removed should be preferred" Why? In every case? The following section on 'heading cuts' lumps specified reduction to small laterals or buds together with internodal whacking.
The differences are obvious and important. Smearing them all together is biologically wrong, but it seems to suit an economic agenda. etc., etc. Arborists who work with older trees are encouraged to consult the EU and UK and German standards.
Unlike the Z, the A300 is pay-to-play. Committee members explicitly weigh the benefit of any proposed changes against the cost of revising training materials. Innovation is not welcomed, so principles from the 1980s get rehashed. Jan 4 is the DEADLINE for sending in comments. Attached are my present thoughts, but I am open to correction!
Pelorus suggested this poll, so if you don't like it, talk to him!
