Tear-out wound leads to questions

[treegazer]

Genus? species?
Trunk diameter?
Extend of cavity? (dimensions)
Thickness of sound wood in the trunk? (the more accurate the better) tomography, resistograph?, by feel with a drill w/thin bit, sounding mallet or visual estimate.

after a very thorough analysis of the entire tree and site.....

Presenting the client with ALL of the management options in a concise written report so they can decide what is the best decision for them.

From the one image I could see a very extensive canopy reduction being performed that would certainly cost more than $1000.00 imo. The client can get multiple quotes to perform the work that is specified in the report under Management Options : Retain the Tree.

Removing the tree and planting a new tree may be the best case scenario, I don't know.

Under the Management Option: Retain the Tree section I would also recommend applying a growth regulator, specify inspection cycles and continued monitoring by the property owners. Managing growth to minimize forces exerted into the compromised trunk is the longterm objective. Risk of failure still exists but is lessened over doing nothing.

Keeping this tree in the landscape for as long as possible is a continued, on going relationship that the "owner" of the tree has to be willing to commit to. It may not be the cheapest longterm option, but that's not really my concern when I'm asked, "What can be done to save this tree?"

 

[KevinS]

Based on the picture, what can be said about the tree, and what services might be reasonable to propose?

Owner has heard multiple removal recommendations from removal companies, and wants an objective opinion.

Any better pics? that one doesn't show detail

 

[guymayor]

Thanks Stacy. Not sure that a 'very extensive reduction' is needed, as the tree has stood up to everything thrown at it so far.
Kevin the pic shows a lot of detail. Sorry I had to resize to fit size limits here. i'll put the album in a blog post, and put up the link.
BRT, your numbers are based on trees = Liabilities, and tree removers as saviors. We still have real, not theoretical, numbers to crunch. If you can convince tree owners that putting $3000 into your pocket + the loss of an asset = A Savings, you could also succeed in the Yukon selling refrigerators!

 

[BRT]

I know I'm repeating myself, but I'll try just once more.

I would not try to convince the HO of anything. LET THEM MAKE THE DECISION! It's their tree--their risk--or asset (that too is their choice--not mine or yours). My removal suggestion came from the screwed up way you originated the thread--THE WORDING WHICH you CHANGED IN ORDER TO ILLICIT A MORE POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM LATER READERS & MASK YOUR DISGUST FOR "TREECUDDERS".

Irony is--you changed the snide wording of the first post--and now you're trying to paint me as dishonest

 

[guymayor]

Quercus sp.--velutina? not sure; I wouldn't waste a lot of time on taxonomy beyond that.

"Trunk diameter? dunno Extend of cavity? Thickness of sound wood in the trunk? (the more accurate the better) tomography, resistograph?, by feel with a drill w/thin bit, sounding mallet or visual estimate."
This datum is hard for me to use; if it's thin or thick, so what? i've seen oaks with 9' girth standing on 3-6" shell wall, so how much accuracy is needed? t/r formulas have no basis whatsoever for trees >36".

"after a very thorough analysis of the entire tree and site.....Presenting the client with ALL of the management options in a concise written report so they can decide what is the best decision for them."
Yup.

"From the one image I could see a very extensive canopy reduction being performed..."
The tree has stood up to decades of storms since it got topped. So, why is an extensive reduction needed? Even if the cavity is deep, and the response on the left side is weak as it appears, what conditions would make you spec >3" cuts or >20% off?

When we do a very thorough analysis of the entire tree and site, that includes tree contributions as well, right?

"Under the Management Option: Retain the Tree section I would also recommend applying a growth regulator, specify inspection cycles and continued monitoring by the property owners. Managing growth to minimize forces exerted into the compromised trunk is the longterm objective. Risk of failure still exists but is lessened over doing nothing."
Totally with you on this.

"Keeping this tree in the landscape for as long as possible is a continued, on going relationship that the "owner" of the tree has to be willing to commit to."
True, but isn't that the case for any big old tree? Or any tree really? Or any other infrastructure? Gotta keep plumbing lines clear, change light bulbs, patch potholes, clean gutters...so it doesn't seem balanced to highlight the potential expense, without equal time to benefits.

"It may not be the cheapest longterm option, but that's not really my concern when I'm asked, "What can be done to save this tree?""
Spending $3k now, in 2015 dollars, is a big hit. $1000 every 10 years seems easier for a landowner to budget, and afford.
And anyone who has done professional tree appraisals would understand this tree might appraise for $10,000 or more. Mature oaks are often valued at >$20,000. Doesn't seem like such a deal, to pay $3k to lose that value!

 

[Bucknut]

If you can convince tree owners that putting $3000 into your pocket + the loss of an asset = A Savings, you could also succeed in the Yukon selling refrigerators!

Peace of mind is also a very valuable asset. We all pay many thousands a year for it to our insurance companies (and most would even if it wasn't mandated). Some people value peace of mind more than the tree.

Removal guarantees a 0% chance that tree damages the house. Leaving it does not. Reduction helps, but they'll still be nervous during storms. And the arborist should be too- cuz owners won't be real happy when the tree you convinced them to keep comes down anyway. (Recommending reduction with a liability release is a tough sell too. Not confidence inspiring).

Let the people who sleep under it decide if it's an asset or a liability.

 

[guymayor]

Maybe it's my aged perspective, but the persistence of these myths seems incredible.

The fact is, tree removal guarantees a 100% chance that adjacent trees have a higher risk to damage the house and crush the life out of those sweet lil innocent babies inside.

"Reduction helps, but they'll still be nervous during storms."
Who said they were nervous? Sounds like an urban logger's assumption.
Trees are good. Trees need care. Arborists care for trees. Loggers and hacks don't.

"And the arborist should be too- cuz owners won't be real happy when the tree you convinced them to keep comes down anyway."
This is paranoid bullspit. Trees I've worked on have crushed houses (not my doing, but that may not matter); never sued. Insurance companies do not work that way, ime. Unless you can cite an example?

"(Recommending reduction with a liability release is a tough sell too. Not confidence inspiring)." Owners of any asset are liable. Every time the owner decides on an action, they reaffirm their liability. Every disclaimer attached to a proposal ensures liability stays with the owner.

"Let the people who sleep under it decide if it's an asset or a liability."
Exactly. If someone with a truck and a chainsaw sees nothing but a liability in a tree like this, and communicates that view to the owner, that's fearmongering and hack consulting. It does not matter how much PPE and bling and iron they bring to the removal job, it's hack work. They would sleep better if they found some honest work to do.
Earning ~$1000 every 5-10 years growing an asset is a sustainable business model.
Making $3000 to remove an asset, then looking for another, and another..., all the while fighting off lower bidders, does not seem sustainable.

But that's just one view.

 

[flyingsquirrel25]

Maybe it's my aged perspective, but the persistence of these myths seems incredible.

"Let the people who sleep under it decide if it's an asset or a liability."
Exactly. If someone with a truck and a chainsaw sees nothing but a liability in a tree like this, and communicates that view to the owner, that's fearmongering and hack consulting. It does not matter how much PPE and bling and iron they bring to the removal job, it's hack work. They would sleep better if they found some honest work to do.
Earning ~$1000 every 5-10 years growing an asset is a sustainable business model.
Making $3000 to remove an asset, then looking for another, and another..., all the while fighting off lower bidders, does not seem sustainable.

But that's just one view.

Exactly. If someone with a clipboard and a degree (which I have both) sees nothing but Asset in a tree like this, and communicates that view to the owner, that could be dangerous and also could be concidered a poor consultation. It wont mater how many pieces of paper and fancy diagnositc tools you bring, if it falls its a poor decision you influenced. You think you would sleep better knowing that it fell and squashed those lill babies, dispite your recommendation for pruning? Thats not a sustainable business model, there is more in this world than making money! Try making a difference. Making $1000 this year for it to fall and hurt someone in 2 or 3 or 5 or 9 years.... Just to convince me the tree is an asset. And you would still have to fight off the low bidders for the pruning, sustainable?

But thats just another view.

Guy,
Before you burn me down... I am just playing devils advicate, playing the other side of the coin. I have never seen the tree and would never form a judgement from a picture. But we all need to be open to all possiblilities.

 

[treegazer]

Thanks Stacy. Not sure that a View attachment 32062 'very extensive reduction' is needed, as the tree has stood up to everything thrown at it so far.
Kevin the pic shows a lot of detail. Sorry I had to resize to fit size limits here. i'll put the album in a blog post, and put up the link.
BRT, your numbers are based on trees = Liabilities, and tree removers as saviors. We still have real, not theoretical, numbers to crunch. If you can convince tree owners that putting $3000 into your pocket + the loss of an asset = A Savings, you could also succeed in the Yukon selling refrigerators!

I'm not sure a very extensive reduction is needed either. But at some point in this trees life, it may become necessary if the trees owners want to do everything in their power to keep the tree in the landscape.

 

[CutHighnLetFly]

Guy you are the opposing extremist to the side you speak so poorly about.
This is like when your at a family christmas party, and there's that one person thats insanely into politics. They always ask people their opinions on something relevant just to open things up, then goes around crapping on every else's opinions the rest of time.

 

[guymayor]

" If someone with a clipboard and a degree (which I have both) sees nothing but Asset in a tree like this, and communicates that view to the owner, that could be dangerous and also could be concidered a poor consultation. It wont mater how many pieces of paper and fancy diagnositc tools you bring, if it falls its a poor decision you influenced."

Absolutely right! Assets can always be increased and liabilities can always be decreased; yin/yang, can't ignore either.

"And you would still have to fight off the low bidders for the pruning"

Not so sure...low bidders seldom have skills to make the specified cuts. If someone with a bucket comes in $100 cheaper and does an OK job, fine by me!

Good post; thanks!

But Stacy I gotta wonder where your suspicion that extensive reduction will be necessary comes from. ?
Doesn't sound likely to me. It's typically gradual, and often one or two reductions last a long time. But yeah when I see it the specs might get tweaked a bit...

 

[treegazer]

My suspicion arose from one medium resolution image with little details about the tree. To be clear, I am not recommending that an extensive reduction needs to be done. I was imagining a worst case, extreme scenario and a client willing to do anything to not cut down the tree. I agree that a little, well placed reduction goes a long way.

 

[Mark Chisholm]

Guy you are the opposing extremist to the side you speak so poorly about.
This is like when your at a family christmas party, and there's that one person thats insanely into politics. They always ask people their opinions on something relevant just to open things up, then goes around crapping on every else's opinions the rest of time.

I had to like this post. But i wanted to add a comment that it's just for the post, not how it pertains to this thread, rather the family get togethers.

 

[Mark Chisholm]

I don't want to distract from this thread, but I have a potential job that makes me a little uneasy and it is similar to the theme here. There is a "hurting" white oak that the power co wants removed. It's very old and very big. It's the state champion. I measured it at just under 8' dbh. It was struck by lightning, had a co-dominant stem and large dead top on one side. The base has a hollow and it hovers over a major road and of course powerlines. When I first heard about thier request I was not happy. I figured it had gotten worse since I last saw it. It is leafing out for the most part and is hazardous for sure. But I am questioning it still. Years ago I would've been excited to do the deed. Now I call it a "deed". Maybe Guy has reformed me. Maybe my name should be "The Reformed Arborist" here?

Anyway, I am going to look at it some more and have a talk with the power co again first. I took pics, but my phone died yesterday. I will try to get some up here for opinions. It may not help, but why not?

Either way, I am glad to have "extreme" views posted on TreeBuzz. Both extremes always help me find the right spot for me personally.

 

[guymayor]

Extremism in the defense of better tree care is no vice! (from an election 50 years ago). some random ?s

If the request is in writing, do they provide details about the assessment that led to this proposal?

Does "hazardous" mean 'in a condition that requires action to meet owner's comfort level'?

Which part is likely to fail and where will it break? What can be done about it?

The OH champ red oak is 9' near the base and 3-6" shell wall. Assessed by me and also 6 smart people. And there it stands.

O and thanks gazer; I thought that's what you meant!

 

[guymayor]

Heard nothing from the owner for a week so I thought she might have had it whacked, but no; we got the goahead to prune it late July.
I put 7 hours on it figuring 1 hour driving time and no cleanup. So we'll see how it looks then.

I'm guessing that the 3-man crew and maybe even a goat can fit in the hollow!

 

[Mark Chisholm]

Heard nothing from the owner for a week so I thought she might have had it whacked, but no; we got the goahead to prune it late July.
I put 7 hours on it figuring 1 hour driving time and no cleanup. So we'll see how it looks then.

I'm guessing that the 3-man crew and maybe even a goat can fit in the hollow!

Thats cool to hear. You'll have to keep us up to date and maybe bring this up again in a year or two. I would be interested in seeing how it does through the years.

 

[guymayor]

OK Mark; I'll post the b&a pics when the pruning happens. re though the years, it'll be pretty boring; once the tree retrenches and regenerates, it is typically very low mtc.
Did you do the deed on that champ yet?

 

[Mark Chisholm]

OK Mark; I'll post the b&a pics when the pruning happens. re though the years, it'll be pretty boring; once the tree retrenches and regenerates, it is typically very low mtc.
Did you do the deed on that champ yet?

No. That's on hold still. I am trying to figure 2 things, a price to remove or a way to convince them to save it. I'd like to cable, brace, prune and maybe get the state to approve it. Maybe even protect it? If I fail...i will cut it down.