selling mature crown reduction to average folks

TCtreeswinger said:
Don't mean to derail but do you guys have any links to HOW to reduce? I just sat in on a class at the short course in mn and it was more..hey look we reduced these trees and look their not falling apart! Not exactly what I was looking for. Anything would be appreciated!
Click to expand...

TCtreeswinger and others,
I liked your post not because the guys did a bad job there, but because I also could have done a better job with the 'how to' when I presented in Ontario.
So I just wanted to say that I'm on it.
Check out my recent additions on 'reducing trees is unnatural' thread. And let me know what I'm missing or other criticisms.
Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Redtree said:
Thanks Tim
I just posted a long 'how to' but on my own thread to be less invasive. I do know I go overboard. But it's so hard to generalize and details are what reduction should be about.
But for fun here is a short 'how to':
The one size fits every tree app, two doses:
1st app
-Mark the tree at every 1.5" diameter point.
-Cut just above the first node below each mark
-if overdose is expected, reduce diameter to 1".
Youve just calibrated yourself to know a 1.5" cut.
It's accomplished a lot of what reduction is about. I'll maybe try it some day and post pics[emoji15]. I bet it would be a good app. Easy to instruct. Thorough. Non invasive. Taper improvement. Strength improvement.
Second app in three to five years:
-cut below half of first app cuts
-cut above the other half. One or two growth rings in each direction. Now you've got options.
Significant risk reduction after second app. Mass production reduction for cities. I dunno, sometimes I just say stuff
Systematic reduction?
It's not really crotch relative. It's nodal and diameter relative.
Not ideal, I'm just playing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for posting these thoughts. I've been meaning to say that for awhile, now. Right to the point, a plan for reduction, in a nutshell.

Great post.

Tim
 
Reduction need only be on a 5-8 year cycle on most trees. This should mitigate the budget concerns.

If quoters used ANSI, reduction would be an easy sell. Attached poster from 2014; specs use active verbs, 35 words or less. (Try that, Ryan!)

That tree was condemned by 4 companies; took 6 hours to prune rope and saddle, the work will last 6+ years--that's 1 crew hour/year, prorated--how can you NOT sell that!
 

Attachments

guymayor said:
Reduction need only be on a 5-8 year cycle on most trees. This should mitigate the budget concerns.

If quoters used ANSI, reduction would be an easy sell. Attached poster from 2014; specs use active verbs, 35 words or less. (Try that, Ryan!)

That tree was condemned by 4 companies; took 6 hours to prune rope and saddle, the work will last 6+ years--that's 1 crew hour/year, prorated--how can you NOT sell that!
Click to expand...

Ed Gilman was talking about 2-3 year cycles at the ne grows a few years back. I thought that was a hard sell.
 
All respect to Ed but his edumacated guess was not based on any experience, and he had not read Henry Davis's work.

Damaging when so many people hear and believe wild guesses that exaggerate care needs, which kills trees for no reason.
 
Guy I like the way that Taiwan standard shows triangulation. It's like what I applied to that reduction on the thread 'reducing trees is unnatural' just now. Not a decayed tree so instead of applying triangulation to the tree, it was applied to each limb. [Look at the limb sticking up on the left. Hey the same limb that shows this is not a round over.] Reducing the end and then reducing laterals. Like sharpening a pencil. This keeps the foliage from bashing into foliage on other limbs while improving general taper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Thanks TimBr for reposting that. I almost forgot I wrote that. Thanks Guy for the challenge. I will try that. Ok a few more than 35 to hit some details but less than 350.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
To paraphrase Redtree (if that's possible!), it's about focusing them on the outcome desired instead of the work to achieve that. You are the expert, not them, most of the time. When they get specific about what to do then it's likely they were told that by someone else. Listen to what they ask to have done and it can give you a hint to how dated their tidbit of knowledge is.

On the subject of knowledge, that is what you are really providing and more importantly, getting paid for. That you may actually perform the physical work is secondary to your knowledge of what to do that will meet their objective while minimizing the insult to the tree.

I had a client complain about the "44%" increase in the cost of the pruning work we did compared to the previous year. I called them and discussed what was set out as the objective, how the work differed from the previous year and thus why the increase in cost. At the end of it, he understood and was satisfied with the increase. Check was sent. No need to discount the bill or apologize for the increase. Just because the description in general terms was the same didn't mean the work would be the same.

Imagine going to a doctor, and asking them to cut off your arm to cure the pain in your wrist. Who's the expert and what should they do?
 
"On the subject of knowledge, that is what you are really providing and more importantly, getting paid for. That you may actually perform the physical work is secondary to your knowledge of what to do that will meet their objective while minimizing the insult to the tree." Yup, selling an inventory with specs is best as a standalone service.
 
That's interesting Guy, I tried to minimize the insult to an Oak tree with my knowledge yesterday. The goal was to bring light to the garden by removing a 10" narrowly attached limb (upright at its origination, then bending out). I said 'today I'd like to mitigate. I'd rather radically reduce the limb and reduce the limb above it, which I need to climb to anyway.' He agreed and the bottom limb looks ridiculous, temporarily. But at least it's not a big wound on the stem. Three cuts at 3" instead of one at 9". The stubs will shoot. As you may know with oak, there is buds waiting and ready at crotches, so cutting both stems is sometimes a better option than the big bad stem cut. This was actually discussed at a recent Ontario workshop from one of the most experienced. One guy criticized the stump look and it was brought to attention that it is a bad look not bad for the tree. Bad yes but not worse. The thing is, it's often a matter of hurting a tree the least not necessarily fixing it the most.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's funny I think there is a lot more to this aesthetic issue than meets the eye. Many aspects of tree work are over focused on aesthetics and more landscaping or clearance based than tree care based. So we need to try to overlap landscaping and clearance with tree care. Raising can often be done with reduction cuts instead of limb cuts, as outlined by the isa. Back to stubs. In hydro clearances, I suspect workers are often instructed to cut stubs off or not to leave stubs. Stubs are bad and ugly but often, trunk/ main stem cuts are prettier but worse, and create risk that is so far in the future that it is not considered. For clearance managers, stubs may shoot and they don't want to come back too soon. But large trunk cuts will shoot worse? I'm not sure, I rarely make them. I think in many cases, making a stub/nodal cut instead of a stem/trunk cut is likely a good trade off. Often codit would be working a few feet off the stem/trunk on a couple 4" wounds at a node (even if no remaining shoot exists...at the moment) instead of an eight inch wound on the trunk. It's like the aesthetic balance of a tree. Many of us are familiar with the average folks who think an unbalanced tree will fall over as if it is somehow balancing on a dime. Not that lean is good but in the majority of open grown leaners it's the last issue and limb failure is still more likely than whole tree failure. The lean is ugly but not always problematic in urban setting. I recently saw some poor hydro cutting, which in my area is usually well done, or at least as well done as it can be. Often those guys don't get the credit they deserve. We all use power. Even more credit to those who live off the grid. Anyway I saw some horribly flush cutting on white pine. It makes me think that quite likely, it would be far superior to leave 6 inch ugly ass stub cuts than to make a cut that is an inch too close. A good collar cut is best but a cut anywhere beyond that will be better than a flush cut every time. The main point I'm trying to make is that hydro clearances could be more ugly but more tree friendly if they included nodal stub cuts as an option. But I'm sure that would be a tough transition as most arborists still think stubs should always be removed. And people who aren't arborists will criticize the work for being ugly. On the other hand, once the stubs flush (think oak or locust), the appearance will be better than a whole in the crown with a section of bare trunk. Once again it depends on the details and exceptions to the rules. Name a general rule and I'll present a solid exception. Rubbing, spacing, codominant suppression, 1/3 rules, deadwooding, remove damaged limbs. I'm sure many of you know some of these exceptions already but if you are curious let me know. As you know I could talk about it all day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom