Topping Dilemna

stevebullman

stevebullman

I have a question i wouold be interested to hear your thoughts.
I read so many topics when im browsing various forums regarding bad topping of trees.
I couldn't agree more with the arguements against it.
The other day i was sent to do a job for our local authority which involved reducing a sycamore by 40%
Now i'm sure you all know that its nothing short of a pain in the arse finding growth points on sycamores to reduce to. So what do you do? Do you tell your local authorities who you rely on for work that you won't do the job? or do you get on with what you're been asked to do
Well we topped the tree by 40% and it looks just like you would imagine. The best i could do was to make it even.
I guess what im saying is, where do you draw the line between what should be done and what you have to do. This particular job was looked at and approved by the local council tree officer. it would be great to tell him that he doesn't have a bloody clue and shouldn't be in the job, the most you can do is offer alternatives, but at the end of the day if he sets the job and provides 60% of your companies work per year what do you do?
 
No dilemma really Steve!
You won't loose any sleep over it, but I'd suggest discussing it with him/her & try to find out what drives the decisions that are being made & who is actually making them. Many might say that it's only a sycamore, but what comes next?
What are the long term management objectives, if any? Etc.Etc. I guess there could be an argument for increasing the longevity if the follow up pruning is carried out for the next 100 or so years.

Nod
 
I think Nod is right, it has to be a conversation between the parties concerned. Maybe ask if he has seen a copy of BS3998 Reccommendations for Tree Work, as far as we are concerned over here there is no other documentation to support the reccommendations for tree work that we are given. I would also ask 40% of what? Crown area, trunk to tips?

Always an interesting conversation to have with a LPA TO, in theory if he/she consents to a 50% reduction what stops you halfing the tree? Nothing he said 50% so 50 it is. I know that many of us consider a crown reduction to be just that, a reduction of the crown only. But during training it is always a good topic to dicuss should a reduction not be prescribed in metres or feet, this gives an accurate bench mark for a contractor to work to and there can be no difference of opinion as to what 40/50% is? In terms of a TPO tree if a consent is given for 1.5 metres and 3 metres is removed you have a tangiable case for prosecution for contravention of the order, it is always a sticky point in the courts as to what is % and has it been overpruned?

Sycamore 40% - mad as a box of frogs!! IMHO
 
do you know why it was to be reduced by 40%.iask because we do quite a few very heavy reductions(40-50%) for a council but this is because the tree is coming out but over a few years as in most of these cases they are on clay soil and they don't want to cause heave to the buildingg they are near.it starts off as 50% then the following year another 10-15% then the 3rd year it comes out.this is to let the water table even it's self out over a period of time.it's an insurance company thang does this happen in the states?
 
I was subbed to chip a job another company was doing for a local municipality. The owner had to be on site with me because the contract stipulated that a certified arborist had to be on site at all times. I was pretty hard on the guy for the pruning he did (boulevard saplings stripped to 6 out of aprox 10 ft (they all looked like q-tips)) He said that that was the specs for the job and he tried to inform them but they would not listen. What do you do about a paradox like this? I hate the excuse "someone else will just do the work if I don't". How can you say it's the worst thing you can do to a tree and you should not do it, then say "well OK, if you REALLY want to." The only way they may listen is to refuse to do the work as spec'ed. I stood my ground many times and only had to walk away a few.

Doing this hurts the industry as a whole- especially you certified arborists out there doing crap work. You know who you are and there are a disturbing number of you.

Dave
 
Hi Blue

This sounds to me like a whole new dilemma youv'e stumbled across!
Firstly it would be great to get some direction towards meaningful research that can back up this phased removal philosophy. On the one hand we're told (by some) that immediate removal will placate problems arising from too little soil moisture, and on the other we're told to slow the removal process right down so that the water table flood gates are not unleashed.
I think that we often carry out work under poor advice with little or no resaearch, that is generated out of litigation fear driven by insurance companies who do not want to foot the bill for shoring up inadequately built houses. The flood of drivell will not cease because there will always be another contractor to offer the quote.But as Dave Spencer says until you have the balls to try & educate or walk away the buck stops with the guy who carries out the work, good or bad!

Nod
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom