Wow I've been out of the loop a while now. Great to see this discussion. Last time I checked in I had a few great questions from Guy July 15.
Yes that leading lateral coming from the 6-8 inch cut was reduced, and with several 1/4-1 inch cuts. And needs to be for a longer term effect and to prevent failure of the newly exposed leader. Cutting smaller and higher was considered but my best guess was go a little more retrenchment style as the structure is ok but not nearly as good as unwoodpeckered.
Yes those small cuts are dirty. Notice that anything over 1-1.5 inches is 'clean' cut. But as clean as that 7 inch cut is, it will always be much more damaging than 1/2 inch damage that mimics minor ice damage. The woodpecker inflicted the worst wound. The 'clean' 7 inch stem cut is almost as bad and the damage of snapping a few is like a mere scratch. So maybe the tool was my saw or maybe a falling top more likely, I forget. But I'm definitely not worried about those small wounds. I'm more likely to inspect the woodpecker damage and large cut. And yes by that time Daniel it might be wise to remove it.
In the mean time the tree casts its seeds over a large area. Thing of the trees I've inadvertantly planted through sparing this tree.
The challenge is to avoid a certain undefined possibility. The occurrence of failure when the strength of the tree is exceeded by the force of a storm. Undefined because we can't measure the strength of a tree and how that strength is changing through the progress of decay on the dark side and the progress of wound wood on the other. The extension added by growth is looked at as healthy but if too greedy, it assists the dark side. Also unpredictable because we do not know when or how severe the next storm will be. But it will be. The strength of the stem of the tree is hard to change. But the existing and long term extension can be incredibly manipulated to reduce forces of leverage applied during storms. Sometimes only a little is required. Sometimes removal is required but too often options and related risks are not properly presented. Just get rid of the problem and plant a new one, really? How about plant a new one, manage the old one to health or to removal at a later date once the new tree is established. Mitigation is key. Ignorance is not arboriculture, it is often business. But business can grow if you grow trees which need regular work, especially when the are in highly beneficial locations. Shading parked cars, west and south windows, a/c units, playgrounds, patios and decks. If it's a risky tree sharing s pool, cut it down. Win win. Or win win lose. I dunno. Am I detailing it must be midnight.
Hopefully the shocking retrenchment style causes growth lower down giving opportunity for further reduction of wounds progress. On the other hand perhaps the wounds will react well and decay will not progress. Then only light reduction will be required upon the next application
Now for crying out loud I'm tired of hearing how constant maintenance is a problem. It's the answer. Yes, this lone pine will require repeat visits. This is good business, good arboriculture, and good environmentalism. As a forestry practice a waste of time but as an urban forest practice, time well spent.
This cannot be compared to a roof, but good comparison I admit. A roof can be replaced, an 80 foot white pine not so much. The cost of fixing an old roof is USUALLY not as cost effective as replacement. Look at a house with life, a heritage house. They are rebuilt one board at a time, often over a long period, requiring regular maintenance.
I've got more to read and more to say. Thanks for the revival Guy.
