Spurring non-removals

Matias

Matias

Been here much more than a while
Location
Butte County
I got a gig with an ISP, installing dishes in trees, and was not surprised to learn that until fairly recently, they required their tree climbers to always be on spurs. They understand that there are spurless methods and no longer require it, but many of the guys still do it.

Does the ANSI A300, or any other similar standard, state clearly that one should never do that? Does doing this expose them to any potential legal action if it causes harm to the tree later down the line? They seem, as a company, open to evolving their in house standards, but they won't change this policy if there is no "need" to do so. I know the line clearance contractors still require their climbers to always be on spurs, regardless of removal or not, so I suspect that theee is no way to convince my company to change their policy, but I would like to try. Thanks in advance.
 
Matias said:
I got a gig with an ISP, installing dishes in trees, and was not surprised to learn that until fairly recently, they required their tree climbers to always be on spurs. They understand that there are spurless methods and no longer require it, but many of the guys still do it.

Does the ANSI A300, or any other similar standard, state clearly that one should never do that? Does doing this expose them to any potential legal action if it causes harm to the tree later down the line? They seem, as a company, open to evolving their in house standards, but they won't change this policy if there is no "need" to do so. I know the line clearance contractors still require their climbers to always be on spurs, regardless of removal or not, so I suspect that theee is no way to convince my company to change their policy, but I would like to try. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Maybe depends a bit on the tree too - a lot of guys would argue that pole gaffs on an older Doug Fir probably don't do much harm. But on something like a paper birch - no spurs, for me anyway, unless removal. I think the spur use is driven by production and speed and perhaps a safety excuse/ ruse - "if linemen can pole gaff up poles, our insurance shouldn't scream if we have the same work methods". But for me, if you're an advocate for trees, no spurs pretty much. As for the guys still sticking to spurs always, seen a lot of that - "My GranDaddy did it that way, My Daddy did it that way and My Son will do it that way". Oh for Petes sake - evolve already will they . . . That's just a behavioural/ lazy human thing.
 
Don't legal arguments come down to referring to known/published best practices anyway, whether they are a law or a standard? Pretty sure there's no 33% max branch removal law but blame/negligence would be pretty solid case in an overprune/tree death scenario (?)

Sorry can't contribute a direct answer whether spurless pruning is addressed in the standards.
 
Bart_ said:
Don't legal arguments come down to referring to known/published best practices anyway, whether they are a law or a standard? Pretty sure there's no 33% max branch removal law but blame/negligence would be pretty solid case in an overprune/tree death scenario (?)

Sorry can't contribute a direct answer whether spurless pruning is addressed in the standards.
Click to expand...
Devil's advocate point of view...I would argue in court that since you're driving holes in a tree to install a satellite dish, you're clearly not worried about a 1/4" diameter wound...which is about the size wound left by a spur.

It's very gray and the argument can be validated with the right lawyer. IMHO
 
Another Devil's Advocate point of view maybe though - would the homeowner feel OK with someone using spurs to go up their cedar siding and up to the roof peak - they're only little spur holes . . . . AND . . . . I'll fill 'em with caulking on the way down . . . .
So maybe, why is a rooted living thing unable to escape human oppression any different than siding and roofing?
:-)
 
ghostice said:
Another Devil's Advocate point of view maybe though - would the homeowner feel OK with someone using spurs to go up their cedar siding and up to the roof peak - they're only little spur holes . . . . AND . . . . I'll fill 'em with caulking on the way down . . . . So maybe, why is a rooted living thing unable to escape human oppression any different than siding and roofing? :-)
Click to expand...

cos it’s already dead.
 
Quantity could come into play. Superman climber can make it up the trunk and into position in 3 steps to drill 3 holes, but a normal guy is going to riddle the tree on the way up, in position and on the way down - 50 spur holes (?) Increase chance for pathogen entry. Neglecting aesthetics - another issue.
 
Spur use on live trees is unprofessional but it is far from the boogyman it's made out to be.
Bart_ said:
Quantity could come into play. Superman climber can make it up the trunk and into position in 3 steps to drill 3 holes, but a normal guy is going to riddle the tree on the way up, in position and on the way down - 50 spur holes (?) Increase chance for pathogen entry. Neglecting aesthetics - another issue.
Click to expand...
Better let the cicadas know about making shallow wounds that create pathogen points of entry. (Sarcastic Devils advocate this time.)
 
Matias said:
I got a gig with an ISP, installing dishes in trees, and was not surprised to learn that until fairly recently, they required their tree climbers to always be on spurs. They understand that there are spurless methods and no longer require it, but many of the guys still do it.

Does the ANSI A300, or any other similar standard, state clearly that one should never do that? Does doing this expose them to any potential legal action if it causes harm to the tree later down the line? They seem, as a company, open to evolving their in house standards, but they won't change this policy if there is no "need" to do so. I know the line clearance contractors still require their climbers to always be on spurs, regardless of removal or not, so I suspect that theee is no way to convince my company to change their policy, but I would like to try. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
While ansi isn’t law, you would need to defend against a damage claim and not using best management practices.

Last time I read ansi on the subject there are many clauses that allow for spur climbing and some are totally passé. ‘When limbs are more than throwline distance apart’, obviously rescue situations and what really pisses me off is “low valued trees”
The rub is someone cares about their tree enough to pay for a pruning it’s not low value. But butchered. These clauses are from power production companies, and line clearance companies.
The self proclaimed largest tree company in the state is owned by certified arborists, their contracts with their clients state all trees must be climbed with spikes. They also require that of their crew! A few defect but many don’t and carry on the practice when they boss man doesn’t live up to their carrot on a stick crew lead bonus pitches, then they just go out on their own.

We wore spurs in a madrone prune this past week, but it was a retrenchment and only on the removed sections.
 
Last edited:
I can understand the argument that if there's already something else damaging the tree then it ok to add more damage via spurring. Not sure how solid it is.

When I've read cornerstone publications I often notice dated references to methods used at the time. New equipment seems to show up all the time. Wonder if DEDA lanyard ever got formalized? And that's from some time ago - same relevance as in tree throw bag/line vs branch spacing- negated by SRT and other methods like grapple hook to bring up a few.
 
I don't have the 2023 book...but A300 Part 1 in 2014 section 8.2.2.2:

Climbing spurs should not be used when entering and climbing trees for the purpose of pruning or other tree maintenance, except in situations where other means are impractical, such as:
*Remote/rural utility rights
-of-way;
*When branches are more than throw line distance apart and there is no other means of climbing the tree;
*When the outer bark is thick enough to prevent damage to the inner bark or cambium; and
*Emergency operations (see subclause 8.10)

---------
So, I suppose you could say "I suck with a throw line and can't get it to the first branch".

I suppose the ISP could also argue they aren't pruning or maintaining the tree.

Besides that point, do ISPs give a rip? Here they'll staple cable to the outside of your house and drill straight through the outside wall for each connection inside (most notably the cable companies where there were TV hook ups in multiple rooms)... Do I really think they care about the trees? (No)

----

Arguments about whether drilling holes to mount the receiver is any worse than spiking the tree... pruning creates wounds too. I think th point is to minimize wounding as much as possible and spikes are completely unnecessary.
 
Even the power company has some people who know how to climb without. My neighbor has an ash we've been treating for 15+ years. One day I happen to be home and see them get ready to spike up. I call my neighbor "meet me at your tree, we're gonna chase these guys off." We explain the situation and that the tree isn't to be spiked. "Our supervisor is down the line a few houses, go talk to him.". I did. He pulled the crew and said they'll send someone later (I'm betting in spikes hoping nobody is watch then...but I was wrong, couple days later someone climbs spineless.)

Same tree next time around, work planner is out when I was getting home. I said "please make sure to note that tree is not to be climbed with spikes". She said "that's how trees are climbed". Uh, oh! Somebody didn't notice the logos on my truck sitting right over there LOL! I explain I'd be happy to run in the house to grab my ANSI A300 to show her that standard...or we can open up the truck and I can show a full set of tree climbing gear with no spikes to be found. She made a note and they didn't spike it a few weeks later.
 
Last edited:
Bart_ said:
I can understand the argument that if there's already something else damaging the tree then it ok to add more damage via spurring. Not sure how solid it is.

When I've read cornerstone publications I often notice dated references to methods used at the time. New equipment seems to show up all the time. Wonder if DEDA lanyard ever got formalized? And that's from some time ago - same relevance as in tree throw bag/line vs branch spacing- negated by SRT and other methods like grapple hook to bring up a few.
Click to expand...
I think there is a near engergized conductor or “when setting a line isn’t practical”
It’s either in the current or previous one, I agree with one perspective of the intent.
If I’m out in the woods and have to climb for powerline clearance that’s one thing.
Spikes certainly are unlikely to penetrate some thicker barked Doug firs, unless they are targeted into the flutes (which is where you want them on the super thick barked ones). That zone of thick bark is going to run out quickly after 15-25’ unless it’s some legit oldgrowth.
Yet I’ve seen crazy damage and minimal in more sensitive species. That really boils down to what is being done to the tree and the practitioner.
One Douglas we waisted 2.5 hours trying to set a line all falling short! We even shot a few from the roof. The tree was accessed by spikes, which were taken off once the first TIP was reached.
I’ve also seen trees pushed over the edge from spike wounds. I’d argue it’s better if they are worn, to wear them in a health vigorous tree in the early growing season than anything that is ailing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom