Upset Members

not to start an argument, but were not cutting down every tree from point a to point b like you. I understand why its done and its great that you guys are doing what you do to replace them!

who's funds do you use for the replacements? your own co. funds or the utility/municipal?
 
Bull, I work on mainly distribution lines, a mix between cities, towns, rural and Forest Service. In some cases we're cutting down all tree from a to b to maintain the ROW but that is not common, and mostly on USFS. Replacements are in the case of my utility paid for by all the rate payers (all the customers) just like all of our tree work and as most utility work is except for new construction in some cases. Just like you guys we don't have the funds to put into planting trees for our customers. I prefer to remove a tree and educate the customer on what should be planted, I minimize the use of replacements and I use them as bargaining chips. Unfortunately we only have so much funds for this.

One thing that I can over emphasize is that other non utility arborists realize why and what we need to do and help educate their customers on having the right trees in the right place and why removal may be the best options. My crews are mostly (75%) certified arborists and some of the most highly trained utility tree workers in the US, we would prefer not to hack trees but sometimes we have no choice, customers feel we're just big corporation wanting to push them around to save/make more money, when honestly we believe in trying to combine line clearance with proper tree care. For those that want to help us instead of just pointing fingers Thanks.
 
I would just like to back up what JJ said. We are a co-op (member owned)utility so we have a lil more lee way than what JJ situation (as I believe they are investor owned?). We budget each year $50,000 for tree replacements. The customer who's tree (over 4"dbh) we take down in a mowed/yard area gets a tree replacement for the tree we take down. On some occasions we give 2 for 1, but those cases are rare. We remover over 6,000 trees last year alone from withing out ROW's on just one substation (90 line miles). Yes we spend a lot on not only replacement costs but labor costs as well. Not to think of the 100 semi loads of chips that were hauled away. Yes some were skeptical of what we were doing, but soon realized the benefits of the hard work that was done when the our area was devastated with summer storms this past year. We received many calls to thank us for doing what we done while we were there. Some did loose power but the restoration times were greatly reduced. This program is not something that we will see immediate results on, but rather see them for years to come with reduced costs to maintain the same lines. And in this economic time even keeping the costs the same is a benefit, much less reducing them. The money comes from the members as does the costs to maintain the system. So they will see the benefits of their investment for years to come. Plus on a side note, IMO the areas we are allowed to remove the trees looks much better after we we done, but just trimming the trees to get clearance (which we still have to do) looks hideous IMO. But what do you do, when the customer wants a 1/2 of a tree? I will have to round up some before and after pics to show you what I mean. The results are unbelievable.
 
Yeah I agree hammer, the hard work does pay off with a lot less outages and shorter response times. We're investor owned and regulated by the state. This year I attended a state conference for arborist and tree workers put on by the AZCTC and a bunch of utility guys where sitting down at a table when a city forester from PHX sat down beside my, I jokingly commented that its not good for his reputation to be sitting with the utility guys, he said it was the opposite as my company has been working with the city on tree replacements where there's conflicts and he and the city were benefitting from our partnership.

I currently work for Arizona Public Service (APS). The other large utilities are TEP in Tucson, Salt River Project (SRP) which is quasi state government. Navapache is in the NE part of the state and NTUA the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. I am sure there's more but I am not familiar with them.
 
OK, here is an example of a random site I visited. The 2 trees that are marked with red "X" are growing in our ROW directly under a 3 phase line and will be cut/removed. They will continue to grow that way unless removed. Also the one tree by the house is split and will be "Made Safe" (Taken down below line level).

IMG00254.jpg




And yes the trees were topped for years, at the customers request/demands.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Those trees are horrible and w3hat give al LC operations a bad name! The customer request they be topped so, so the muni obliged? Just throw all standards out the window?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, What would u do?
cool.gif
 
Would have sent an Arbo there that knew what was going on, and told the homeowner to piss off when she asked for topping, and told her why its bad. Those trees have no choice but to be taken down now. Plant a new smaller species.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Would have sent an Arbo there that knew what was going on, and told the homeowner to piss off when she asked for topping, and told her why its bad. Those trees have no choice but to be taken down now. Plant a new smaller species.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would not work very long in the utility industry then, because with that statement you would be fired the minute you got back to the office, if not sooner. Also that statement shows your ignorance about the utility industry and what we are up against every day.

And BTW I am a certified Arborist, and have been since 1995.

If you take the time to read, I stated that the trees were being removed/cut.

I, nor you can help what has been done in the past, but we just have to deal with the situation at hand.

And yes, from time to time we do have to top trees under the lines. We have no other choice. When the customer wants the tree topped, after explaining what is "Right" and wrong methods. What else do you do? And telling a member to "piss off" is not an option here.
 
Been part of the Utility industry for almost 10 years now. I have been doing LC off and on for 3 years now. I also am an MA, and ISA Certified Arbo.

Telling them to "piss off" is a figure of speech around here. Maybe you like tell them they are crazy better? Point is the homeowner should have been made aware of her tree being in a poor location, and that topping was not the right thing to be done to ANY tree, at ANY time. AND the effects topping her tree WILL have on its health. Being a CA, you should know that topping is never correct, right? Maybe directional pruning could have worked when it was much younger? Maybe removal and planting one of those free trees you speak of would have been better, way back when?

Either way the customer is not right in this instance, and neither was the arbo who topped those poor trees. How bad is the split in the tree with the co-dom right next to it? Too much for a crown reduction to take some weight away, install a cable, and a nice mulch ring around the base for vigor?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Been part of the Utility industry for almost 10 years now. I have been doing LC off and on for 3 years now. I also am an MA, and ISA Certified Arbo.

Telling them to "piss off" is a figure of speech around here. Maybe you like tell them they are crazy better? Point is the homeowner should have been made aware of her tree being in a poor location, and that topping was not the right thing to be done to ANY tree, at ANY time. AND the effects topping her tree WILL have on its health. Being a CA, you should know that topping is never correct, right? Maybe directional pruning could have worked when it was much younger? Maybe removal and planting one of those free trees you speak of would have been better, way back when?

Either way the customer is not right in this instance, and neither was the arbo who topped those poor trees. How bad is the split in the tree with the co-dom right next to it? Too much for a crown reduction to take some weight away, install a cable, and a nice mulch ring around the base for vigor?

[/ QUOTE ]

BB I agree with most of your logic, but to apply that in this area is suicide. Really
The practice of all unethical tree work is alive and well around here. Customers have the understanding that topping is what Uncle Hershel done so I should do it too. I had Rip Tomkins and Sean Green come in a do a climbing seminar in 2000 I believe it was, both of them were amazed at the amount of topping that went on when they were here.It has not changed either. I actually bought a truck and chipper and was doing a few jobs but most of the customers wanted the trees topped or defaced and that was not the route I wanted to go, so I ended up selling all the equipment. Not worth it. They want them topped, directional pruning will not fly with most of them.

As far as the split in the tree, it could (big If) be braced and cabled but that is not something the utility is willing to do. You get into liability issues if it fails,and annual costs to reinspect the tree. Plus the upfront costs are too great to do something like that. Again, not much of that type of work around here.
 
sounds as if the utility is liable for all those trees they allowed to be topped. make a stand man! tell the utility that your a CA and you're not doing shite work to appease them. show them that "this " is how arboriculture shall be practiced!

good luck!
 
[ QUOTE ]
sounds as if the utility is liable for all those trees they allowed to be topped. make a stand man! tell the utility that your a CA and you're not doing shite work to appease them. show them that "this " is how arboriculture shall be practiced!

good luck!

[/ QUOTE ]

Liable for what? doing what the customer wanted. I doubt it will fly. Plus alot of these trees have been topped for many years dating back to when it was accepted practice to do so.

And just for Info, I work directly for the utility, not a contractor. We do try and do the right thing, and do for the most part. But when you have a tree under the lines that the member will not let you cut topping is about the only thing you can do. Sorry, but that is the way it is. But we do make every effort to remove said trees before topping is done, short of enforcing the easement in court.
 
Not trying to argue

Liable for topping and killing trees. if a homeonwer pulls their head out of their rectum, and recognizes the hack work being performed (topping trees) someones lawyer will have a field day.....and you being a CA will be in that courtroom if the cuts belong to you. We see it all the time around here.

How do trees go un-noticed/untouched for so many years that topping or removal are the only choices? When did you miss the chance for directional pruning?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Not trying to argue

<font color="red">Not here either</font>

Liable for topping and killing trees. if a homeonwer pulls their head out of their rectum, and recognizes the hack work being performed (topping trees) someones lawyer will have a field day.....and you being a CA will be in that courtroom if the cuts belong to you. We see it all the time around here.

<font color="red"> Maybe, but I will be armed with the documentation that they were informed of what was proposed and their signature on what was actually done and why. </font>

How do trees go un-noticed/untouched for so many years that topping or removal are the only choices? When did you miss the chance for directional pruning?

[/ QUOTE ]
With 3,300 miles of line there are things that get un noticed at times.

But what do you not understand about them not wanting directional pruning? I know the ins and outs and the why, but they claim they do not like the "Look" of it.

1. I offer replacements to remove the tree. Denied
2. They want it trimmed/topped
I explain to them why it should be removed and the effects on topping. Denied
3. They want it topped.
 
Tell them that topping is not right, and we will be directional pruning this tree sir/ma'am. Its not hard we do it on a daily basis. Tell them this is all we are prepared to do, is prune the tree and train it to grow away/over the lines. We do not top because:.......

I guess we have different views in the Northeast about proper line clearance/tree pruning techniques.

You as a CA should know that topping is wrong, and do what is right. By giving in, and topping the trees, your as bad as every other hack out there.

You should go to the tire dealer, and when they ask what you need done, tell them I need some air let out of that right front tire there. When they release the air via the valve stem tell them that you don't like the look of the valve stem so please cut it off for me. Thats the preferred method I want my air released, and then I will drive out of here. You get the same effect, but one is right and one is WRONG!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Tell them that topping is not right, and we will be directional pruning this tree sir/ma'am. Its not hard we do it on a daily basis. Tell them this is all we are prepared to do, is prune the tree and train it to grow away/over the lines. We do not top because:.......

I guess we have different views in the Northeast about proper line clearance/tree pruning techniques.

You as a CA should know that topping is wrong, and do what is right. By giving in, and topping the trees, your as bad as every other hack out there.

You should go to the tire dealer, and when they ask what you need done, tell them I need some air let out of that right front tire there. When they release the air via the valve stem tell them that you don't like the look of the valve stem so please cut it off for me. Thats the preferred method I want my air released, and then I will drive out of here. You get the same effect, but one is right and one is WRONG!

[/ QUOTE ]

Topping is wrong but is a means to and end. Our ultimate job is clearance from the high voltage lines one way or another. Unfortunately I have not read an easement that allows us to remove complete trees unless they are in the way of equipment being installed, as ridiculous as it sounds, most easements have the language that says we have the right to maintain vegetation to prevent hazards associated with the high voltage lines, not remove any trees under the lines as we please. It is unfortunate but that is the way it's laid out for the most of us on distribution. Utilities seem to be reluctant to take every home owner to court that opposes removal of trees under or just adjacent to our lines, or fight for stronger easements. We manage 23,000 miles of distributions and over 5000 line miles of transmission. Transmission is finally back to re-establishing their ROW's but they have federal regulations and hefty fines behind them to help. Most of us with distribution do not have much of a leg to stand on in the issue of rules and regulations that would allow us to do a better job.

We, unlike some reputable residential companies can't walk away when a customer asks us to top the tree (though we certainly tried to remove it) we have the obligation to make it safe around the high voltage lines. We usually have to cover ground fairly fast to give the crews enough work and deal with all our other duties, sometimes we only have so much time to allocate to doing "right" when it comes to tree care. Not the best excuse, but it's the truth. I hope utilities keep on trying to educate the customers, but funds are usually short for this, and is left up to us guys that are knocking on doors and calling customers. We're probably the best ones for the job but it seems the customers think we're trying to remove the tree only for our benefit and not theirs, we big corporate don't you know.

Well enough ranting for now, I will leave you with these beautiful pictures of a Siberian elm we had to top as the customer refused to answer my calls and then refused allowing us to remove the tree. We made it safe (for the lines) ideally all sprouts are removed every cycle and will not be allowed to grow up. I can't educate a person that will not listen.
 
More pics of the beauty:

Bull, I speak for myself, not sure about all the utilities that I have not worked for, I really try to prune trees to direct growth away from the lines. The unfortunate part is I like hammer have to deal with the way work was done in the past. I attempt to have trees directionally pruned, but I don't have the best trees trees (NE deciduous trees like you). I have mainly Siberian (trash) elms and ponderosa pines with cottonwood, trembling aspens, Russian olives, box elders, Lombardi poplars mixed in. A few locusts, silver maples, ash trees, Douglas firs, and the very odd walnut mixed in. Just 2 hours south in Phoenix you get a greater assortment of fast growers (a great array of Australian species and palm trees).
 
to the layman these poorly pruned trees probably look pretty good especially when in leaf.they dont know about propertree prunining just as much as they dont know about building cars but they do know what they like and are entitaled to an opinion (especially when the trees are on their land or going to affect their property) wheather it be right or wrong.
mostly in utility pruning topping is better than removing a tree in these circumstances(unless they prove dangerous or you have the rare chance to nurture those trees from conception,but that just dosn t happen).
keeping the treescape is important on roads as the majority of people arnt schooled in arboriculture and would rather see green than barren land,even if badly pruned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom