topping trees

treehumper said:
IMHO, its learning the science behind the shalls and shoulds to understand when it may be the right approach. The more you know of the way a tree functions and responds the better decisions you can make and the better you can convey that knowledge to your clients.
Click to expand...
IMO it's learning fromth e trees and realizing the limitations of science in this area
 
Common sense concepts can be backed by science, no? The two can go hand and hand. I don't really see them on two ends of one scale. Sort of like art and religion. Although, I learn more from practitioners that are science guys than science guys who are practitioners. That's why we need both. If you take the weight off the end of a branch, then it is less likely to break due to leverage. That is common sense. It's also physics. Science


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't think that th meant to say that the concept of 'science' is restricted to formal research. We all know that mature trees resist that type of study--too many variables! Observation and documentation is reliable Science, more than just common sense, when done systematically.

I note that my brother from another country said the same thing at the same time...!
 
Redtree said:
Common sense concepts can be backed by science, no? The two can go hand and hand. I don't really see them on two ends of one scale. Sort of like art and religion. Although, I learn more from practitioners that are science guys than science guys who are practitioners. That's why we need both. If you take the weight off the end of a branch, then it is less likely to break due to leverage. That is common sense. It's also physics. Science


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Depend n who's paying for the science.... paying the bills is very unscientific, but someone's got to do it!
 
and of course they work synergisticly...

Here's something VERY UNSCIENTIFIC...

Compartmentalization is BAD...
that's right folks.. you heard it first here...

listen closely now . Its....... Shigo's ghost screaming NOOOOOOOO!
 
Last edited:
Disclaimer: Please skip this if you don't like long posts

Ok this is how I see it. Currently, in our small field, common sense wins. Actually, I recall reading or writing 'the science needs to catch up to the common sense', in the context of arboriculture, especially with reduction. Maybe We don't need the science, if we have the art of the practice well tuned. Can't science help us teach the practice though?
To me the science is there, people just haven't produced the best of it yet. Good science is true, no? It's just difficult to find and convey.
Not a one size fits all, but I like the math of the 5/30 rule. 5 percent reduction in crown radius produces 30 percent reduction in crown volume. This partly explains that we don't need to reduce with big diameter cuts, in order to greatly reduce the sail. We need to reduce with medium and small cuts, obviously depending on species, the level of structural defect, and the level of decay and woundage which may lead to decay. But yes, applying this concept is an art more than a science and this math does nothing to explain the application process. Just another tool in the practitioners perspective toolbox.
in some fields science trumps? How about surgery. Picture the doctor, scalple in hand, 'don't worry sir, I missed the vasectomy class but I've got a lot of common sense'. Ok that's not fair.
How about this idea. The science of better tree care is there, people are getting close, we just haven't seen it yet in more full force.
Science guys may appreciate the observations of reactions that you have seen and documented in trees. Many of us get the ball rolling. As big, urban, soft trees become recognized as part of the diverse solution, we will appreciate that they NEED reduction, for more permanence and resilience. This means the pressure will likely build to clean up the science. I'm thinking science Guy is feeling some of that pressure. And helping to work on it too. Terminology, definitions, organizing variables. Multi stem madness is a bitch in the urban forest. Science guys will realize that, and stop trying to 'correct' the incorrectable. Or correct the correctable and ignore the commonly found multi stem madness. Slow, progressive improvement, often regularly applied, through reduction, combined with thinning, is explainable in scientific terms. Science can divide species and site conditions in communicable terms. Note that proper thinning, by definition is not thinning from the middle, it is thinning from the edge.
Science here in this field will come from studying the reactions to levels of pruning doses and application weight. Reactions will vary in different species in different conditions with levels of vulnerability due to decay and/or poor structure. All these variables have put a barrier on the advancement of the science. But it's gaining awareness and getting there.
The idea that cutting to nodes is better than the idea of cutting to crotches, will gain science backing. Cutting to nodes covers cutting to crotches. Cutting to crotches does not cover cutting to nodes. Nothing new, in practice, just terminology issues, in education and training. And certainly not practiced enough.
At small diameters, internodal cutting in many species will prove to be problem free, like it often is in nature, which is also not perfect. The question is, if a 1/2 inch diameter, one foot piece falls out of the tree later, does it make a sound? Does the tree get hurt from this? We don't have time or 80 foot backyard buckets to make these cuts perfectly. Nor can we argue that complex trees don't need a high level of detail and thoroughness in the application. but please make the cuts over 1" clean and at nodes. And to a smaller diameter in biologically vulnerable trees.
Application diameter limits. many stressed out Boulevard maples, get hurt from even 2 inch cuts. Backyard, vulnerable, vigorous maples with inclusions can handle 2 inch but not more. Unless serious decay then maybe more, knowing that you are in rescue mode, not a more ideal 'still growing bigger but bigger slower, stronger' mode. A locust can handle more. But is it a shade master or a fungus prone sunburst?
Another big problem for the science is defining dose and application. The level of dose we apply is not restricted to the amount we take off in one application. It also refers to the frequency in which we apply applications. A big vigorously growing silver maple with moderate decay and inclusions, may require a heavy dose. A heavy dose could mean a heavy application. What a nightmare. That might look like topping. A heavy dose could also mean a medium application followed by several light applications, applied every two years. that might look like progressive reduction. What a dream. Could even use a cable to compliment, or a strap if too many stems to justify 5-8 cables. Tomato basket system. Logistics. Common sense to me.
More common sense, much of this could add to a trees lifespan. Small AND medium cuts, applied to the outermost portion of the crown, prevents large failure. And large failure leads to decay. Especially important in soft, long lived trees that stand as loners. Urban and suburban and once we get their value, rural areas.
The concept of vertical vs horizontal has shown to put up a barrier for better tree care practice as well. First of all rarely is a limb exactly one or the other. Sure, more or less one or the other. But what about limbs on a 45 degree that grow as high as the central leader and as dominantly or more dominantly. Or 70 degrees? Particularly a problem for addressing maples, particularly Norway maples. These trees may not need a lot in the upper midpoint. But they most likely need a whole lot just outside of this. Think of it maybe as the edge of the arctic circle. Then prune heaviest at 45 degrees. Then at the equator, prune lightly where possible to maintain spread. This is correction via triangulation. See also post 60. These norways often start off square ish and end up round after the first app. This is still triangulation. After all, once we apply the second app it goes from round to a rounded triangle. Progressive triangulation application can fix codoms. Again nothing new. Just an addition to the perspective toolbox.
The idea that lower, horizontal limbs are a risk and vertical uprights are not, can be a barrier. In many species yes, but in multi stemmers not always. The toronto ice broke a lot of uprights in Siberian Elm and Silver Maple, multi stem or not. Some trees simply benefit from complete crown reduction. Thorough yet sensitive.
We have to be careful not to diminish our urban canopy cover by overdosing the reduction application weight on the spread. Reduce low limbs, with high risk, with care. 1-2 inch diameter cuts often do, especially complimented with thinning and a frequent visit. Even if that second visit is just to address these lower limbs. Then the third visit, the whole crown again, but limited thinning only in the top.
This will happen, that will happen. What do I know? Maybe it won't? Am I dreaming? It's 2:00 am, I should be.
Common sense is good but once it's all organized and teachable in the classroom, then it's science? I'm tired after a crazy post in man vs wild but thought I might throw half my lifetime of work out here on this thread too. Not that it's even my work. Largely a reflection of many others. I'm not sure about this stuff just hopefully fuelling the debate. Great thread. Man vs wild is more important though. Less tree relative maybe. Maybe not.???? Actually I think part of the environmental issue is to reduce and retain. Showing the public and gaining awareness of this may illustrate that we need to manage trees for trees not just for people. We need to redefine tree maintenance. It's not landscaping. It's conservation arboriculture. Is there a better term Guy? Preservation arboriculture?

I know I've said a lot here and quantities can't be easily generalized. I guess some of the above numbers are averages. But I strongly believe that it is very rare to need to make a reduction cut larger than 4 inches. I very rarely set the limit over 3 inches in a given tree and I average at 2" as a limit.
Thanks for reading. Reduce with details, thoroughness, and sensitivity.
Every leaf counts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Redtree said:
Disclaimer: Please skip this if you don't like long posts

Ok this is how I see it. Currently, in our small field, common sense wins. Actually, I recall reading or writing 'the science needs to catch up to the common sense', in the context of arboriculture, especially with reduction. Maybe We don't need the science, if we have the art of the practice well tuned. Can't science help us teach the practice though?
To me the science is there, people just haven't produced the best of it yet. Good science is true, no? It's just difficult to find and convey.
Not a one size fits all, but I like the math of the 5/30 rule. 5 percent reduction in crown radius produces 30 percent reduction in crown volume. This partly explains that we don't need to reduce with big diameter cuts, in order to greatly reduce the sail. We need to reduce with medium and small cuts, obviously depending on species, the level of structural defect, and the level of decay and woundage which may lead to decay. But yes, applying this concept is an art more than a science and this math does nothing to explain the application process. Just another tool in the practitioners perspective toolbox.
in some fields science trumps? How about surgery. Picture the doctor, scalple in hand, 'don't worry sir, I missed the vasectomy class but I've got a lot of common sense'. Ok that's not fair.
How about this idea. The science of better tree care is there, people are getting close, we just haven't seen it yet in more full force.
Science guys may appreciate the observations of reactions that you have seen and documented in trees. Many of us get the ball rolling. As big, urban, soft trees become recognized as part of the diverse solution, we will appreciate that they NEED reduction, for more permanence and resilience. This means the pressure will likely build to clean up the science. I'm thinking science Guy is feeling some of that pressure. And helping to work on it too. Terminology, definitions, organizing variables. Multi stem madness is a bitch in the urban forest. Science guys will realize that, and stop trying to 'correct' the incorrectable. Or correct the correctable and ignore the commonly found multi stem madness. Slow, progressive improvement, often regularly applied, through reduction, combined with thinning, is explainable in scientific terms. Science can divide species and site conditions in communicable terms. Note that proper thinning, by definition is not thinning from the middle, it is thinning from the edge.
Science here in this field will come from studying the reactions to levels of pruning doses and application weight. Reactions will vary in different species in different conditions with levels of vulnerability due to decay and/or poor structure. All these variables have put a barrier on the advancement of the science. But it's gaining awareness and getting there.
The idea that cutting to nodes is better than the idea of cutting to crotches, will gain science backing. Cutting to nodes covers cutting to crotches. Cutting to crotches does not cover cutting to nodes. Nothing new, in practice, just terminology issues, in education and training. And certainly not practiced enough.
At small diameters, internodal cutting in many species will prove to be problem free, like it often is in nature, which is also not perfect. The question is, if a 1/2 inch diameter, one foot piece falls out of the tree later, does it make a sound? Does the tree get hurt from this? We don't have time or 80 foot backyard buckets to make these cuts perfectly. Nor can we argue that complex trees don't need a high level of detail and thoroughness in the application. but please make the cuts over 1" clean and at nodes. And to a smaller diameter in biologically vulnerable trees.
Application diameter limits. many stressed out Boulevard maples, get hurt from even 2 inch cuts. Backyard, vulnerable, vigorous maples with inclusions can handle 2 inch but not more. Unless serious decay then maybe more, knowing that you are in rescue mode, not a more ideal 'still growing bigger but bigger slower, stronger' mode. A locust can handle more. But is it a shade master or a fungus prone sunburst?
Another big problem for the science is defining dose and application. The level of dose we apply is not restricted to the amount we take off in one application. It also refers to the frequency in which we apply applications. A big vigorously growing silver maple with moderate decay and inclusions, may require a heavy dose. A heavy dose could mean a heavy application. What a nightmare. That might look like topping. A heavy dose could also mean a medium application followed by several light applications, applied every two years. that might look like progressive reduction. What a dream. Could even use a cable to compliment, or a strap if too many stems to justify 5-8 cables. Tomato basket system. Logistics. Common sense to me.
More common sense, much of this could add to a trees lifespan. Small AND medium cuts, applied to the outermost portion of the crown, prevents large failure. And large failure leads to decay. Especially important in soft, long lived trees that stand as loners. Urban and suburban and once we get their value, rural areas.
The concept of vertical vs horizontal has shown to put up a barrier for better tree care practice as well. First of all rarely is a limb exactly one or the other. Sure, more or less one or the other. But what about limbs on a 45 degree that grow as high as the central leader and as dominantly or more dominantly. Or 70 degrees? Particularly a problem for addressing maples, particularly Norway maples. These trees may not need a lot in the upper midpoint. But they most likely need a whole lot just outside of this. Think of it maybe as the edge of the arctic circle. Then prune heaviest at 45 degrees. Then at the equator, prune lightly where possible to maintain spread. This is correction via triangulation. See also post 60. These norways often start off square ish and end up round after the first app. This is still triangulation. After all, once we apply the second app it goes from round to a rounded triangle. Progressive triangulation application can fix codoms. Again nothing new. Just an addition to the perspective toolbox.
The idea that lower, horizontal limbs are a risk and vertical uprights are not, can be a barrier. In many species yes, but in multi stemmers not always. The toronto ice broke a lot of uprights in Siberian Elm and Silver Maple, multi stem or not. Some trees simply benefit from complete crown reduction. Thorough yet sensitive.
We have to be careful not to diminish our urban canopy cover by overdosing the reduction application weight on the spread. Reduce low limbs, with high risk, with care. 1-2 inch diameter cuts often do, especially complimented with thinning and a frequent visit. Even if that second visit is just to address these lower limbs. Then the third visit, the whole crown again, but limited thinning only in the top.
This will happen, that will happen. What do I know? Maybe it won't? Am I dreaming? It's 2:00 am, I should be.
Common sense is good but once it's all organized and teachable in the classroom, then it's science? I'm tired after a crazy post in man vs wild but thought I might throw half my lifetime of work out here on this thread too. Not that it's even my work. Largely a reflection of many others. I'm not sure about this stuff just hopefully fuelling the debate. Great thread. Man vs wild is more important though. Less tree relative maybe. Maybe not.???? Actually I think part of the environmental issue is to reduce and retain. Showing the public and gaining awareness of this may illustrate that we need to manage trees for trees not just for people. We need to redefine tree maintenance. It's not landscaping. It's conservation arboriculture. Is there a better term Guy? Preservation arboriculture?

I know I've said a lot here and quantities can't be easily generalized. I guess some of the above numbers are averages. But I strongly believe that it is very rare to need to make a reduction cut larger than 4 inches. I very rarely set the limit over 3 inches in a given tree and I average at 2" as a limit.
Thanks for reading. Reduce with details, thoroughness, and sensitivity.
Every leaf counts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Urban forestry management ?

When I was first introduced into pruning, the guy trying to show me how to hand snip was not very good at explaining his actions. He ended up telling me that he just knows what to cut. For my perspective I see, yes a strong bit of science a bit more of art and what you get with the combined experience is intuition on the matter at hand.

A little booklet that covers best management practices on pruning trees is laughable at a minimum, rather quite disrespectful to the advance of making the science of our profession, truly professional.
 
Redtree said:
Disclaimer: Please skip this if you don't like long posts

Ok this is how I see it. Currently, in our small field, common sense wins. Actually, I recall reading or writing 'the science needs to catch up to the common sense', in the context of arboriculture, especially with reduction. Maybe We don't need the science, if we have the art of the practice well tuned. Can't science help us teach the practice though?
To me the science is there, people just haven't produced the best of it yet. Good science is true, no? It's just difficult to find and convey.
Not a one size fits all, but I like the math of the 5/30 rule. 5 percent reduction in crown radius produces 30 percent reduction in crown volume. This partly explains that we don't need to reduce with big diameter cuts, in order to greatly reduce the sail. We need to reduce with medium and small cuts, obviously depending on species, the level of structural defect, and the level of decay and woundage which may lead to decay. But yes, applying this concept is an art more than a science and this math does nothing to explain the application process. Just another tool in the practitioners perspective toolbox.
in some fields science trumps? How about surgery. Picture the doctor, scalple in hand, 'don't worry sir, I missed the vasectomy class but I've got a lot of common sense'. Ok that's not fair.
How about this idea. The science of better tree care is there, people are getting close, we just haven't seen it yet in more full force.
Science guys may appreciate the observations of reactions that you have seen and documented in trees. Many of us get the ball rolling. As big, urban, soft trees become recognized as part of the diverse solution, we will appreciate that they NEED reduction, for more permanence and resilience. This means the pressure will likely build to clean up the science. I'm thinking science Guy is feeling some of that pressure. And helping to work on it too. Terminology, definitions, organizing variables. Multi stem madness is a bitch in the urban forest. Science guys will realize that, and stop trying to 'correct' the incorrectable. Or correct the correctable and ignore the commonly found multi stem madness. Slow, progressive improvement, often regularly applied, through reduction, combined with thinning, is explainable in scientific terms. Science can divide species and site conditions in communicable terms. Note that proper thinning, by definition is not thinning from the middle, it is thinning from the edge.
Science here in this field will come from studying the reactions to levels of pruning doses and application weight. Reactions will vary in different species in different conditions with levels of vulnerability due to decay and/or poor structure. All these variables have put a barrier on the advancement of the science. But it's gaining awareness and getting there.
The idea that cutting to nodes is better than the idea of cutting to crotches, will gain science backing. Cutting to nodes covers cutting to crotches. Cutting to crotches does not cover cutting to nodes. Nothing new, in practice, just terminology issues, in education and training. And certainly not practiced enough.
At small diameters, internodal cutting in many species will prove to be problem free, like it often is in nature, which is also not perfect. The question is, if a 1/2 inch diameter, one foot piece falls out of the tree later, does it make a sound? Does the tree get hurt from this? We don't have time or 80 foot backyard buckets to make these cuts perfectly. Nor can we argue that complex trees don't need a high level of detail and thoroughness in the application. but please make the cuts over 1" clean and at nodes. And to a smaller diameter in biologically vulnerable trees.
Application diameter limits. many stressed out Boulevard maples, get hurt from even 2 inch cuts. Backyard, vulnerable, vigorous maples with inclusions can handle 2 inch but not more. Unless serious decay then maybe more, knowing that you are in rescue mode, not a more ideal 'still growing bigger but bigger slower, stronger' mode. A locust can handle more. But is it a shade master or a fungus prone sunburst?
Another big problem for the science is defining dose and application. The level of dose we apply is not restricted to the amount we take off in one application. It also refers to the frequency in which we apply applications. A big vigorously growing silver maple with moderate decay and inclusions, may require a heavy dose. A heavy dose could mean a heavy application. What a nightmare. That might look like topping. A heavy dose could also mean a medium application followed by several light applications, applied every two years. that might look like progressive reduction. What a dream. Could even use a cable to compliment, or a strap if too many stems to justify 5-8 cables. Tomato basket system. Logistics. Common sense to me.
More common sense, much of this could add to a trees lifespan. Small AND medium cuts, applied to the outermost portion of the crown, prevents large failure. And large failure leads to decay. Especially important in soft, long lived trees that stand as loners. Urban and suburban and once we get their value, rural areas.
The concept of vertical vs horizontal has shown to put up a barrier for better tree care practice as well. First of all rarely is a limb exactly one or the other. Sure, more or less one or the other. But what about limbs on a 45 degree that grow as high as the central leader and as dominantly or more dominantly. Or 70 degrees? Particularly a problem for addressing maples, particularly Norway maples. These trees may not need a lot in the upper midpoint. But they most likely need a whole lot just outside of this. Think of it maybe as the edge of the arctic circle. Then prune heaviest at 45 degrees. Then at the equator, prune lightly where possible to maintain spread. This is correction via triangulation. See also post 60. These norways often start off square ish and end up round after the first app. This is still triangulation. After all, once we apply the second app it goes from round to a rounded triangle. Progressive triangulation application can fix codoms. Again nothing new. Just an addition to the perspective toolbox.
The idea that lower, horizontal limbs are a risk and vertical uprights are not, can be a barrier. In many species yes, but in multi stemmers not always. The toronto ice broke a lot of uprights in Siberian Elm and Silver Maple, multi stem or not. Some trees simply benefit from complete crown reduction. Thorough yet sensitive.
We have to be careful not to diminish our urban canopy cover by overdosing the reduction application weight on the spread. Reduce low limbs, with high risk, with care. 1-2 inch diameter cuts often do, especially complimented with thinning and a frequent visit. Even if that second visit is just to address these lower limbs. Then the third visit, the whole crown again, but limited thinning only in the top.
This will happen, that will happen. What do I know? Maybe it won't? Am I dreaming? It's 2:00 am, I should be.
Common sense is good but once it's all organized and teachable in the classroom, then it's science? I'm tired after a crazy post in man vs wild but thought I might throw half my lifetime of work out here on this thread too. Not that it's even my work. Largely a reflection of many others. I'm not sure about this stuff just hopefully fuelling the debate. Great thread. Man vs wild is more important though. Less tree relative maybe. Maybe not.???? Actually I think part of the environmental issue is to reduce and retain. Showing the public and gaining awareness of this may illustrate that we need to manage trees for trees not just for people. We need to redefine tree maintenance. It's not landscaping. It's conservation arboriculture. Is there a better term Guy? Preservation arboriculture?

I know I've said a lot here and quantities can't be easily generalized. I guess some of the above numbers are averages. But I strongly believe that it is very rare to need to make a reduction cut larger than 4 inches. I very rarely set the limit over 3 inches in a given tree and I average at 2" as a limit.
Thanks for reading. Reduce with details, thoroughness, and sensitivity.
Every leaf counts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Redtree said:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
:eek:You typed all of that on your iPhone? ;)
 
Redtree said:
Common sense concepts can be backed by science, no? The two can go hand and hand. I don't really see them on two ends of one scale. Sort of like art and religion. Although, I learn more from practitioners that are science guys than science guys who are practitioners. That's why we need both. If you take the weight off the end of a branch, then it is less likely to break due to leverage. That is common sense. It's also physics. Science


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes!
Common sense can lead one to a scientific theory. A theory that can be disproven, yet never proven. Evidence can however, suggest validity on a theory. The only proofs in our world are in math and alcohol. I did not make this stuff up, just stuff I read that makes sense to me.
 
Along with other forms of science, the formal research is there: 'Reduction pruning released the smaller remaining lateral branches as the new primary growth axis on the shoot more than larger lateral branches.'
Yet the current draft of the pruning standard makes mature tree reduction sound exceptional
 

Attachments

guymayor said:
Along with other forms of science, the formal research is there: 'Reduction pruning released the smaller remaining lateral branches as the new primary growth axis on the shoot more than larger lateral branches.'
Yet the current draft of the pruning standard makes mature tree reduction sound exceptional
Click to expand...
I like the sound of that sir! Good show. Just makes senses.
 
9.62 topping: Excessive reduction of tree size by cutting live branches and leaders to stubs, without regard to long-term tree health or structural integrity. Topping is not an acceptable practice.

So if someone cuts all the branches off a tree, leaving no stubs, that is not topping?

And I'm still trying to find out what is "excessive"--according to what objective? To whom? where? when?
 
Great questions and points Guy. On one hand heavy reduction or topping is mostly applied for people's needs, not for tree health objectives. 'My satellite dish', 'my view', 'my roof', my pool', 'my high powered hydro lines'.
On the other hand, heavy reduction may look excessive. It may look bad. It may cause vertical shooting. It may cause a lot of stress to the tree. But it might be completely necessary given extreme circumstances of well justified 'high risk'. Vertical shoots, hurray, better than adding to reach/spread on a vulnerable limb with significant decay. Reduction ranges from regenerative, or retrenchment such as this to something that looks almost like thinning. Proper thinning, thinning the crown edge, not the interior. On one end of the scale you may be phasing a tree out or giving it one more shot at a good reaction. On the other end of the scale you are not shrinking a tree or even stopping growth in size. You are just slowing it down for better taper and triangularity of shape.
Sadly, I saw some guys gutting the other day. Two young guys in a nice truck with bucket. It looked like the stem of this poor Boulevard Linden was shot with an automatic paintball gun with yellow-white ammunition. Just doing there job I guess. Not the worst of hacking just a complete waste of a bucket truck. We have to criticize carefully though, it's not like they are two idiots. Not at all. They are misinformed and the idea they are applying is idiotic.
Topping aimlessly hurts trees. Reducing vulnerable trees carefully, can extend there life as it prevents large failure. Common sense proves this. All you need to do is a few easy thought experiments and you'll know this. Vulnerable trees in a natural forest don't care if they fail. In fact their failure nourished the forest because no man comes in and 'cleans it up'.
I have so much to say about 'looks better' vs. 'is better'.
More later



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
guymayor said:
9.62 topping: Excessive reduction of tree size by cutting live branches and leaders to stubs, without regard to long-term tree health or structural integrity. Topping is not an acceptable practice.

So if someone cuts all the branches off a tree, leaving no stubs, that is not topping?

And I'm still trying to find out what is "excessive"--according to what objective? To whom? where? when?
Click to expand...
Nice cuts there, pretty sure it will come back.

Clearly weak lingo when avoiding liability
 
Here's a reduction cut I made on a tree the other day. Just one cut for this prescription. First, here is what happens to a few Firs in the same stand, that are not reduced.

.
b41be27256c13338604a99328c9e61a3.jpg

Here is the Fir on the right, now looking similar to the taper of the cedar beside it.
0dcbf8b0b1d35b3b1b67e9d07a53d245.jpg


Here is the piece removed. 3" in diameter.
c33bdf5b679c95d95f65b3a8facf80db.jpg


I know, I know. How could I? Well, this is not a fake tree, which I disagree with. This is not a live tree that was killed to stand in my house for a couple weeks. It's not really topping either though. The 3" reduction cut was made to a node. The tree doesn't look bad but yes it looks worse, a reality that is acceptable in the reduction of vulnerable, often decaying trees. But like I said it doesn't look bad and in a storm it certainly won't bend over. It could also react with a heavy seed crop, perfect for this forest setting.
I don't recommend this in most cases. Please do this only in a forest setting where the trees are not seen. And obviously, be extremely careful with the climb. Fir branches break very easily. For this reason this would obviously never become mainstream.
I've always wanted to do this but didn't like the thought of ruining the look of a tree. I know what Shigo would say. But he saw a lot of bigger badder topping. I went through with it as it is an acceptable reduction cut, although slightly overdosed. I will also say I made a few small cuts leaving only one terminal bud from the 3-4 new leads to grow. Plus better than murder or plastic. No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I have thought up a pretty good analogy that seems to capture most of my commentary on topping.

Consider a Roofer who tarps a roof when a client asks them to fix a leaking problem. Does the tarp do the job? Does it cost less? Can anyone do it that can climb up on the roof?
Now that tarp is ugly (I guess that is subjective). It doesn't do anything for long term health of the roof - It will actually do more damage to the roof and the tarp will quickly destroy itself and cause more problems. The roof will have to be tarped again...and again.

Now I realize that sometimes a house needs to be tarped or it will be destroyed...with storm damage for example. Or trying to restore an old house that cannot hold the weight of a roof.

But, I am mostly concerned with people who take a perfectly good roof and put a tarp on it. Why? Why not pay a little more to have it done right and have a roof that will last much, much longer.

So no Tarping or Topping, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom