Pruning sales

[Redtree]

Right away I feel like I'm breaking some kind of unwritten rule. I've also learned that sharing can be progress. Apparently Germany may be better at this sharing knowledge thing. Perhaps most of Europe. Sort of a say what you think attitude. We've got it to but the eyes of competition sometimes prevail as I'm sure it often does in Europe.
Plus I'd love to see a great selection of pole pruners at the trade shoes beside the acres of wonderful machinery toys. Maybe one day a Redvers pruner.
Today I'm doing a Black Cherry reduction. Perhaps over the porch is the only necessary portion. But I sell complete tree reduction all the time. Once you educate the client. 'Not only do trees fall down, they also fall over'. And 'the unreduced portion becomes more exposed'. (This is often more significant than removing a nearby tree, or no?). And finally 'the tree is important for your backyard and your sanity, if it breaks on the back side, it won't hit the house, but it might hurt the tree near or beyond repair, or the kid or the dog'. Now they know they might want the whole tree done because 'we love that tree, it shades our yard and children'. So you say. 'If we reduce it properly, we can avoid failure that might lead to decay or emergency removal'. And commonly but not always 'Since this big tree is not rotten but very poorly structured, we should reduce/thin it 2015, 2017, 2020, 2015, 2023' (or some kind of growing proportion, 2,3,5,8,13,21. That's the golden ratio. But maybe better to top it out at 10 year cycle. This kind of regular application is much better as training growth habit is improved as a higher number of smaller co-dom cuts can be made. Reducing large, neglected trees with big co-dom cuts may reduce risk instantly, but opens a real can of worms. Literally. Ha that's funny cause the sprouts look like a can of worms. Think Siberian elm in the city after a year of post ice damage growth. Can of worms. Big cuts also give greater opportunity to decay. Mother nature does it too, so it can't be that bad, just not ideal. As arborists we look not for the right answer but for what's more ideal. Theres a million ways to prune a tree and there might be one best answer. More importantly there's 500000 good answers.
Civilized tree care. Or no?
To back this up see sample of David Lloyd Jones e book on Tinder. Better yet get the book. Speaking of Better, thanks Guy for his name. He calls it Crown Reduction via Thinning. I look at it slightly differently but on a scale we are neighbours. Maybe his house is bigger and older than mine I can't remember the books name though. Prune like the wind comes to mind but not really close.
Thanks for reading.
Anyone got a good pitch for selling pruning? Or no?
Give it up for the trees. And the trees will give it back.

 

[treehumper]

Do you have any pics of your work that you could post?

 

[Redtree]

I Tried yesterday from my phone. I've Got thousands. I Will post with iPad. But see thread on removal techniques. I put up a photo a few days ago. First application. Two trees but looks like one. One reduce/retrench, one reduce/thin.

 

[treehumper]

hmmmm…. couldn't find them.

 

[Redtree]

Oops. Sorry about that. I checked again they're in Guys' quote to prune.

 

[treehumper]

Picture = 1000 words.

If that's the right solution to fulfill the clients objectives then that's the way to go.

 

[Redtree]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying I'm serving the client and not the tree?

 

[treehumper]

We apply our knowledge of trees to serve client's goals. Unless the tree is paying you then yes you're serving the client.

 

[Redtree]

What do you think of the pruning done on them? Would you have gone heavier or lighter? Keep in mind the tree on the left has decay from a wound 5 feet off the ground that has exposure. Small 2 inch exterior hole but long closed split extending a few feet above and below the hole.

 

[guymayor]

In standard-speak, goals and objectives are very different.

Clients tell arborists their goals. Arborists consider those goals in light of the tree's needs, see if they are realistic or perhaps need revision (Do you really need less leaves on the lawn? Look at how easily this battery-operated blower works!), figure out a way to manage the tree to achieve those goals, and communicate that to the client. What the client and arborist agree on is the Objective of the work.

"The Objective SHALL be established before work begins" means that if you don't reach that agreement with the client, you are in CLEAR VIOLATION of the A300 standard (and UK, German, etc.). It does not matter what kind of cuts you make!

The steps needed to meet the Objective are the Specifications.

 

[KevinS]

I'm confused by this post. Are you saying
-we should do more with pole pruners,
-proper pruning of the whole tree is better than building clearance only
-only do reduction pruning
-something about topping being a good plan
-regular scheduled tree work is the best plan

-You say 'If we reduce it properly, we can avoid failure that might lead to decay or emergency removal'.
Careful with this trees are living things and events beyond our knowledge and control can happen. If that tree has a inclusion, rotten trunk that you aren't aware of things can always go pear shaped. What you can do is reduce the risk/ chance/ likelihood of things going pear shaped, you can't guarantee nothing bad will happen.

-I'm sure we understand the whole can of worms ordeal but you could go into more depth on why structure is a big deal. Whether it's thinning, reducing a co-dom, etc this is to improve the overall structure of the tree (hopefully) and with structure should come strength/stability (I think that's 1 of your points)

I feeling like you're asking something but there's no question. Not trying to pick on anything, I totally agree, as most here do, sharing tree knowledge is key for the trees and our industry to continue symbiotically.

But as for my sales pitch I don't have one. I look at each tree individually pretend it was mine and offer there best course of action for the tree that (my slightly limited I'm sure) mind can come up with. I often talk to homeowners and offer as many different paths as I can as well. They may ant a tree removed because they're worried about it. So I will offer a removal, and if possible talk them through weight reduction, structure pruning, cabling/ bracing, any thing I thing is a viable option. But if they're set on removal(I spur up and rip it down) I inform them on stumping and planting options.
So I guess thoroughly informing is my sales pitch.

Hope it helps even a little

 

[Redtree]

Thanks Kevin for pointing out to how this is sounding. I will likely say more things that don't make sense in my search to help people think differently.
Yes I need to watch my wording. I didn't mean this is a sales pitch for every tree. Nor is it my only pitch, but just an example of one. Nor am I really a salesman at all, but more an educater to my clients as are you. Often I spend too much time on it.
I don't even think I've said 'trees don't just fall down they also fall over'. That's poor wording. But I have explained to clients that a branch over their roof may be much less risk than some of the uprights further away, in one way or another. I do lots of clearance pruning as we all have. But yes often complete tree pruning is more ideal, but not necessarily economical. So it depends on the value and structural quality of the tree, as well as the owners pockets. In an urban setting trees are usually too valuable to be left to the next storm for breakage. I do believe that had the trees in Toronto been carefully reduced over time, that they would have done much better. This does not mean that the trees would end up smaller, it means they would be kept in check and would get bigger over time. It might take them longer to reach full size but they'd get there more safely and be retained there longer.
Sometimes I forget to use words like often or maybe or sometimes.
I do think we should do reduction pruning more often. Not that I'm blaming arborists for not doing it. It's a matter of demand. Perhaps I am a bit of a salesman though, as I have sold this complete reduction over and over again. And the clients love it. They see that the reduced tree moves less in the wind than the others. Many also reported after the ice storm that they didn't break. I have a golf course I did Weeping Willows for and the ones I didn't do fell apart. So he hired me to clean and reduce the badly broken ones.
As for topping, not good, but I think severe reduction (retrenchment) has a place and the whole 'don't top trees' thing gives the odd person the wrong idea. I cut leaders quite often. Not on a young tree with correction Options. But put it into context. If I have a large decurrent multi stem, poorly structured tree that I'm reducing ( because correction is no longer an option) and I reduce all the stems and there is no good leader, do I look for a shoot to take the leader role? Sometimes yes with a thinning application of the leading stem so as not to leave it vulnerable. Sometimes no, I reduce everything. Again context. On a large tree I might top out at 2 inch diameter. Today I measured some pieces that I cut yesterday. Some of the 2 inch diameter tops were 12 feet and some were 16 feet. Some 1 inch cuts were 8 feet and some were 5 feet. In total roughly 300 cuts 2 inches down to 1/8 inch. Most pieces were 3-6 feet. This is somewhat of a guess but I did measure the bigger lengths and diameters. An excersize I highly suggest for calibrating yourself and employees for writing and/or following prescriptions. This tree was topped badly many years ago. The best prescription for that is perhaps regular reduction. Otherwise the likelihood of failure at the old topping points increases. Every 10 years might be good, but more frequently is better.
In the forest, reduction would be a waste, but in the urban forest we have one tree in one spot. No next generation coming underneath. So can't we set the trees up for a longer life and with less risk with regular light application reduction/thinning? I think possibly even just thinning once reduction has tamed the higher risks. The point is that over time taper is improved.
So I suspect that yes regular pruning is the best plan if you want to reduce risk in a medium risk tree, therefore likely avoiding failure leading to damage to property and damage or loss of the tree. Most of the trees in the city are like this, incorrect and uncorrectable but improvable and valuable. Sorry for calling a tree incorrect. Perhaps they are natural and uncivilized. Chaotic not controlled. You get the idea.
Thanks for reading
Any thoughts?

 

[KevinS]

That cleared up a few thing

 

[RyanCafferky]

Far too often I am brought in on contract climbing jobs where the jobs are bid improperly. The trees so clearly need reduction to prevent failures but either the salesman didn't see it that way, or the client doesn't want to pay for what the tree really needs. I often have to compromise on what needs to be done and just follow the work order but often I try and go above and beyond and do what is truly necessary.

Selling what needs to be done starts with educating the sales staff which is tricky when they have no concept of how proper reduction work is done or how long it takes.

 

[oldoakman]

Far too often I am brought in on contract climbing jobs where the jobs are bid improperly. The trees so clearly need reduction to prevent failures but either the salesman didn't see it that way, or the client doesn't want to pay for what the tree really needs. I often have to compromise on what needs to be done and just follow the work order but often I try and go above and beyond and do what is truly necessary.

Selling what needs to be done starts with educating the sales staff which is tricky when they have no concept of how proper reduction work is done or how long it takes.

BINGO!!! And the client is just as uninformed. A viscious circle.

 

[treehumper]

That is often a fault of the training regimen that the company provides. Sales people need to learn pruning methods and their applications as they are advanced to keep up with what their arborists know.

 

[guymayor]

I'm my own salesperson and I chronically underbid. Getting better--the last two were spot on-- but often my estimate is 10-30% under the real time it takes.

I just bid 4 hours to reduce a 90' x 50' willow oak with Ganoderma. Very easy to sell reduction vs. limbing up, for safety's sake.
4 hrs. seems about right, and I bid at the same rate that other good companies get for a 2-man crew with tools. 3 hrs in the tree, <10% off, 1-4 meter lengths, <10 cm cuts. I forecast a 5-8 year cycle.

The bid skews upward when I know the other bidder is D***y or B******t. Nice to have a cushion, so we can nitpick a little more.

 

[LimbLoppa]

Me Thinks if you don't cut ✂ trees , you don't bid jobs-period.

 

[RyanCafferky]

Me Thinks if you don't cut ✂ trees , you don't bid jobs-period.

That is nice in theory but the best sales people aren't necessarily current or former climbers. The best sales people I know have worked with the crew and learned from them about what to sell, what not to sell, and how much to put on various jobs. Knowing how long it takes is something nobody can always get right. Even us long time veterans.

 

[Redtree]

I just finished a job quoted for two days and it took me four. The worst one in a long time. Four reductions plus apples etc. But I still loved it, and didn't mind, because on average I've gone from 30-50 percent low to about 10-15 percent too low. The point is that I climb 2-6 days a week for the past 15 years and I still often under quote.
I think a large part of the problem with quoting is that crown cleaning and deadwooding is over prescribed. So when you show up and explain the necessary reduction, make sure you explain why it may be significantly higher than previous quotes to raise and deadwood. Raising and deadwooding and clearance is for people and reduction is for trees. Some of us practice more landscaping than arboriculture. And that is fine as trees do need to work with the landscape, both functionally and aesthetically. The function that is often forgot though, is the one of canopy safety and canopy retainment. Trees are often removed because an owner simply doesn't know the options of clearance and reshaping. Way too many do not understand that trees over the roof are a good thing. They shouldn't touch and rub the roof, but once they are clear, they actually prolong shingle life and reduce cooling costs. I think a non climber can quote, he or she just needs better information, and more communication is required to get there. A lot of climbers are not good communicators, or they are, but they just don't do it.
But the client usually understands clearance and reduction of reaching limbs. What he she really needs to hear is where some of the verticals, with week crotches may need to be reduced, far away from the target. There's more to safety than clearance. The thing to say is "ok we can fix the limb that may fall a distance of five feet onto the roof, but why don't we fix the more risky stem that can fall five times further with more speed and more mass? Not only can we save the bottom limb and your porch, we can save the whole tree and your house"
Explain it. People like it. People listen. And know when you got a tree lover or a just a house lover. Often you can sell reduction just for the purpose of saving a nice tree that has no target. Who would have thought. I can see where that statement is going. Nature can take care of trees just fine, says the hippies. Why reduce a tree with no target and 'play God'? Well it's simple, nature has no aim towards longevity, and we can see where a tree might have grown a vulnerability, and reduce that vulnerability. You can make an oak-like structure out of a Manitoba maple, over time. But yes you may put more effort on a silver maple. The reality is that a good portion of our cities canopies is soft elm and soft maples. Manage it, and retain it. It's species diversity and it can be a safe and functional part of the canopy, as it already has been for the most part. It's funny, we call Manitoba Maple a non native invasive, yet a Kentucky Coffee tree is one of the hot new 'Natives'. Look it up. I'm pretty sure both are native to ontario and neither are native to this particular location. We love to hate certain species yet we preach species diversity. Hello. They all play a part, even if it is simply the nursery tree part. Let it be until the 'better' species is established under its shelter and protection.

My Acer negundo, after its third application, just after the ice. From multi stem maple vulnerability to multi stem retainability, with better taper. Too old to change much and remove defects which are well established. Even the witches broom, which is the leader, remains. This tree failed after its first application, to a 5 inch diameter limb. After the second app we had several minor storms and a pretty good ice storm. Not a drop out of it. It is not safe yet. We might get a tornado. All bets are off, but likelyhoods are much different.
An important note here is this. Over time in this tree, the pattern of the progression of the canopy edge has changed. The inner branches which were dying back as the tree extended are no longer doing that. Now the tree is actually allowing light into these inner branches and twigs and they are growing and improving taper and decreasing transportation requirements within the tree. I believe I remember Guy referring to this pattern as growing downward. This is where nature is more concerned with the competition for space and light. With that comes extension and vulnerability. The urban arborist tames this by improving taper and therefore safety and longevity, because we don't want nature to break the tree, as there is not one right beside it to shoot up, like there is in nature.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk