Remove it? Leave it alone? Cable it? Steel? Cobra?

sorry about the text but it would not attach. ?

here is a pic back w red dots showing the hardest i would want to hit the old girl; preferably less.

if anyone can not comfortably do or at least specify this type pruning, please hold off on opining as qualifications are lacking.

this unassigned remove/retain, kill/keep dichotomy is what puts this industry between a stump and a hard place. Fratricide on forums doesn't help either.
 

Attachments

  • 350127-Glennqpagoda.webp
    350127-Glennqpagoda.webp
    211 KB · Views: 94
Nice to hear it, Mr. Meillor....I like the reduction options, and Yes it is time consuming and expensive to arbotom a 30' crack (we've done it). Armchair speculation aside, some deeper forensic work is definitely indicated.

Your dig against the pseudomath of the tree hazard evaluation form is well received. Its not an exact science. These numbers are approximations within a scaling system meant to roughly gauge the degree of risk. They (the numerical hazard eval forms) are a useful framework--but they should never be construed as an exact use of mathematics--the way that calculus will assist calculations in kinematics.

I take it that you reject this system...curious as to what format you'd replace it with--a narrative evaluation of the tree? That kind of thing should always accompany a tree hazard evaluation.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully the attached photo is good enough to see some of the decay from a previous branch failure. I think the (now missing) branch on the right, about half way up failed and ripped a healthy branch on the left trunk many years (ten maybe) ago, but I'm not sure. The tree is located in a back yard and there are no significant targets. Quercus pagoda

I'm looking for opinions, and your rationale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there someone on your team that can perform a 'tree risk assessment'?
Do you have access to a resistograph?
 
Whatever is recommended it starts with the evaluation of the client. We're not called to these trees by themselves so, why start there. Is the client looking to preserve this tree at any cost or at the least any reasonable cost relative to its value to them and the property? Therein lies the starting point for what degree of assessment you can do and the degree of confidence you might have in your recommended options.

I had a similar type of situation with a smaller red maple. The client wants the tree saved and is willing to pay for it with the understanding that it may be only another 5-10 yrs that she'll gain.

What would the the best approach? There are many trees in much worse condition that have stood against some nasty storms without losing any limbs or sustaining any damage. Yet on a calm day we show up and declare it a hazard. What is the weather history of the area?

Too many questions to ask before a clear path to diagnosis can be established.
 
mrtree. It's people like you that give these sites such a bad rep. Didn't your parents teach you at a young age, if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all?
I don't care if you disagree but it takes a lot of nerve to disrespect people like that, and that is coming from a 22 year old!
Get of your high horse big shot

Cheers,
 
"Armchair speculation aside, some deeper forensic work is definitely indicated.

Yes but it need not be costly. 10 minutes with hand tools should tell enough to guide the reduction.

"Your dig against the pseudomath of the tree hazard evaluation form is well received. Its not an exact science. These numbers are approximations within a scaling system meant to roughly gauge the degree of risk."

well that has changed; read the BMP. numbers were only ever supposed to be used for prioritizing work when assessing populations. Dr. Clark repeated this to SMA nov 2012.

"They (the numerical hazard eval forms) ...should never be construed as an exact use of mathematics--the way that calculus will assist calculations in kinematics."

true

"I take it that you reject this system...curious as to what format you'd replace it with--a narrative evaluation of the tree? That kind of thing should always accompany a tree hazard evaluation."

yes i have not used numbers on single treees since the mid-90's. Narrative, and measurements; all the quantification relevant. what i reject is the keep-or-kill choice, which is a self-defeating role to put ourselves in as arborists imo bad idea.

The tree has value. our job is to grow that value. any decision has to factor in the value of the tree or it is skewed toward removal.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Is there someone on your team that can perform a 'tree risk assessment'?
Do you have access to a resistograph?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've contracted out resistograph work in the past because we don't own one. I doubt I'll recommend the cost of a detailed tree risk assessment because there is minimal danger if this tree fails (unless someone is standing under it).

I'm leaning towards preservation, with some cabling and light pruning. However I haven't decided on a course of action yet.

I appreciate all of the constructive comments, keep them coming. I'll post here again with whatever decision we make, probably in a few weeks.
 
"I'm leaning towards preservation, with some cabling

what would be the objective of the cable? you think the client wants to skimp on assessment, but fork out a couple extra 100s for a dynamic cable (which is far higher mtc.)?

"and light pruning. However I haven't decided on a course of action yet."

Client should pay you to climb the tree and look in the holes. KISS, why overcomplicate things?

"I appreciate all of the constructive comments, keep them coming.

get your butt or someone elses up that tree!

You're welcome!
smile.gif
 
Glenn, I thought I'd mention that we had a client with a big, questionable cavity on a Grand fir. We used the arbotom and the degree of risk was acceptable to the client: she chose to keep the tree. The software that Frank supplies with the package will even calculate directional strength loss. We are lucky to have a great company in the Portland area who has the device and who charges a very modest fee for his work. I think Jeff (New Day Arborist) billed the customer 3-500 for his and his son's time. We through in the labor for free and recouped it on the prune. We took out a moderate pruning dose in the plane of lean. Here's video of the cavity and the arbotom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVgi0NyBbK0

I don't know that the resistograph will give you as robust a readout as the arbotom. We were able to take readings at 5 ft. intervals and the software modelled cross sections and a column display--you could really see the whole cavity.

I know that even a resistograph is expensive, let alone this device.

Sounds like the oak tree in question is really far out of the way and if it does fail there is little chance of damage.

wink.gif
 
No targets, right? I wouldn't do anything beyond removing dead wood and making that mulch ring bigger. Advise the client not to have a picnic during a wind storm.

If the client wants to throw money at the tree, offer all those other services everyone has mentioned.

For me, what it all comes down to is this: what would I do if it were mine. That is what I tell the customer and they usually appreciate it. Why scare them with a bunch of options that all have a price tag attached when there are no targets? Just to make some money?

I don't know. Ask me again tomorrow.
 
From the picture, it looks like the left side is relatively stable, despite the decay column. Like Guy said, aerial inspection would be best.

The right side lead looks like it could fail at the decay point where the old stub is (again, tough to say from the pic).

Failure of the right lead OR failure at the inclusion down low would make the tree much less viable. Preserving a balanced canopy while preventing large breakouts could make this tree viable for a long time. In some cases it's not about targets, just the preservation of the tree itself as part of the landscape.

If I had to make a prescription from the pic, I would at least perform minor weight reduction of the left lead and more significant weight reduction of the right lead. I'm not a huge Cobra supporter, but this could be just the place for one also. Mis dos centavos.

-Tom
 
Here goes...

If it was on MY property, I think I might top it about half way up both stems. It looks like there are some good ol' sprouts on the lower half and after seeing the Arthur Clough Oak, I would like the chance to see what kind of structure could be developed from such a tree.

If it didn't work out, down it would come and in it's place would be planted a tree with eyes towards its proper pruning throughout its life to encourage a Beautiful & Huge & Well Structured Tree.

Let me explain...

I think there is only so much we can do to try to tame these wild old trees. For example... maybe this tree will get ten more years before falling, possibly at an inopportune time/place. I wonder whether or not it is better to bring it down a little early and get a ten-year head start on a replacement tree which will certainly be getting proper arbo care to help it develop into a Beautiful & Huge & Well Structured Tree, which would only help to endear the homeowner to all trees, which in my opinion is fighting the good fight.

However, I realize we are talking about a customer here, and if there are no targets and the tree is well-loved, let it live out it's days... (I find it hard to believe that tree won't reach a house in some direction, but I believe you if you say it won't). Kids around? That would make me further lean towards a new young tree in that spot, particularly because of the learning opportunity that presents itself when children and trees grow up together.

I look forward to comments, especially about the topping thing...
 
I love topping trees (Guy knows I mean nodal pruning). Seems I've done more of it since I became a BCMA (that's third rate hack to the Mrs out there), but its mainly been observation of topped or storm ravaged trees that makes me more cavalier in my recommendations with certain trees.

The trees just don't want to stop growing!

SZ
 
Very good points since Mrs grumplestiltskin when off on his keyboard. (lost any respect there was on my end by the way...)
I still think it should stay, but goodpredator you make a convincing statement.
For me I guess it depends on the age of the client. If its an older person and they want the tree around because of its benefits at this stage in its life, then by all means, grow old with the tree. But if its a younger person that is still going to see the inevitable, and perhaps soon, demise of this tree, then perhaps the start over method is a good approach. And if its someone in the middle who is up for trying a 'topping prune' to see what can come back, then go for that.
But I do not think its an immediate removal tree.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you so much for posting the info about that symposium. Priceless.

[/ QUOTE ]yer welcome that was just a quick review. o and btw there is another one this summer, and they could probably use some climbers--call for proposals from research teams is up at the ISA site. should be fun; last time was a hoot.
laugh.gif


"If it was on MY property, I think I might top it about half way up both stems. It looks like there are some good ol' sprouts on the lower half and after seeing the Arthur Clough Oak, I would like the chance to see what kind of structure could be developed from such a tree....
I think there is only so much we can do to try to tame these wild old trees. For example... maybe this tree will get ten more years before falling...",

Where in the world do these prognoses come from? So often we hear 5 yrs, 10 yrs, when with care 50 or 100 years is not out of the question. TYhere is a LOT we can do to tame these wild old trees, like a caballero taming a horse.

SZ, you are quite cavalier, a gay caballero!
cool.gif
 
guymayor,

it was much more of a random guess than a prognosis, but your point is well taken. I agree there is "a lot" that can be done to tame them, but the definition of "tame" is where it gets tricky and as this thread shows, a consensus is far off.

Quick Question:

I know that trunk girth is no way of telling the age of a tree, however I vaguely recall reading that height is a fair predictor of age... anyone know about that?
 
Thinking about my question now... What i recall is that species have an average amount of height they put on yearly, (with given light availability etc.) and so, could height be used to give an approx. age?

I think it's unlikely that tree is going to make it through another 50-100 years (simply based on weights/angles/forces from the photo), however I think it would have a really good chance if there was someone who could read it like an open book, know all of it's faults, defects and needs and proscribe the ideal course of action utilizing our current tools and methods. But hey, that's what we are all trying to do, isn't it? Trying to attempt the impossible as best we can. (except me of course... i want to top it at 50%)!
 
[ QUOTE ]
One more thing...

Why does anyone think being called a 'woman' is an insult?

Respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone with very low self esteem might get offended.

SZ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom