Wow......Arborist Ethics in the UK!

Right handed-saw on right

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
I cant answer that with the options you have.

On the first it depends on alot of thigns. I may do the work but delegate the final raking to the customer. If I think about it and grossly overpriced the job then yeah, I will think about coming down assuming its not below my corrected bid (assuming I correct it). Or if I gave a fair bid I will stick to my guns.

On the second, I am responsible for the topping, however the climber should know that possiblity and take actions to prevent it. Kinda like walking off a bridge and sueing the contractor. I am responsible for the topping and that makes me responsible for the climber but the climbers poor judgement/knowledge also is a factor. I guess the best bet on this one is to not top it to start with! /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Carl it's good to see you, Ekka, Alves and a few others taking the high road concerning tree abuse.

The arguement that "After 28 years in this business you get the big picture" is really lame when the subject is topping 80ft. trees to 30ft.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Dan- Where do you stand on the subject?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in your camp John. Along with Ekka, Lumberjack, John S., Dunlop, Treelooker, Alves, and anyone else who's name I've missed. I haven't topped a tree since 1989 and never spike a prune job. I do mean never.

The camp that does whatever is needed to get the money is probably the single biggest problem with arboriculture today. That is my belief anyway. I wish they would find other more profitable work and leave the trees alone.

My disgust at some of the expressed attitudes towards trees was the reason I brought attention to the thread. It's almost like finding living Neanderthals.
 
Jason, Not enough choices. Poll number 1.option 3 "Oh that guy bid it for $1350? My work is better and I do better clean up. If he wants $1350 I should have bid it for $1875...but I don't change my prices unless the job description changes. I'll stand by my $1500 bid." Poll number 2. What on earth are you talking about? I don't top trees. /forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
oky, It is a real issue. thank you for bringing it to the table. I love trees. First and foremost. And yes. I will top a tree before I cut it down. Period. Sorry. I think that sometimes the value of a tree is more alive hacked than dead. Sometimes a customer is unconvinced. I think a tree is worth more alive than dead and it comes down to topping it versus killing it. I think SHigo is wrong when he talks about the dignity of a tree. A tree topped is better than a tree dead. Period. I think that the whole tree care industry has been distracted by the issue of tree topping and not enough attention has been paid to soil killing. True green\chem lawn is our true enemy at the moment. Please. let us get to the issue of creating living earth for our trees. Thank you.

kevin
 
more on the subject. A tree that is topped will continue to grow. if the owner recognizes the hazards of topping and can mitigate and manage his tree. To me that is great. That is far more noble than KILLING THE tree and planting a shrub. Sometimes, people are afraid of trees. I can not argue with them at that point. I am afraid of cars and chainsaws I can relate to being afraid of things. Therefore, a topping that makes them feel safe, and a commitment to continually care for a topped tree is better than killing the tree. I dont care what shigo says. A topped tree that provides shade and oxygen for an elderly couple is better than a stump that provides neither.

A topped tree does require continual care. It is the responsibilty of both the arborist and the owner to care for a tree after topping. That is where the ethics come into play. It is also crucial that the soil be taken care of properly. A healthy tree will grow in healthy soil. As a cluimber, I hate to admit that true tree care occurs at ground level. Mycor fungi, worms, nematodes, algea, legumes, bacteria, LIFE!!!! That is what we as arborists need to be focusing on.

Yes, we should avoid topping trees. But really, please, that should not be our battle at the moment. We need to be focusing on the outright slaughter of our living soil. again, thank you.


kevin

Down with True Green/chem lawn and the narco traficantes!
 
[ QUOTE ]
... A tree topped is better than a tree dead. Period...


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with you on this a tree topped gives a false sense of security, a topped tree is a hazard anyway you want to put it. Topping does nothing but make that homeowner feel better about themselves, and it does nothing for the tree then to intruduce massive amounts of decay, take a look at top trees, there is rampant movement of decay in that tree from the wounds that we inflict.

Sometimes its better to start over than risk taking on that liability


and I think it is a discussion we should have
 
Me again. Sorry. This issue is an important one for me because I think about the conflicts between capitalism and good tree care constantly. I have never worked for someone that put trees ahead of money. That had always frustrated me. As for myself, I hate to admit, I have compromised what is best for the tree in order to pay my rent. Those decisions will haunt me the rest of my life.
What can I say, the rent is paid, a tree is dead, everybody is happy. AAAAGH. In this very way, Adam Smith (or whoever founded capitalism) was a degenerate. He did not account for the value of a tree standing, loving you, protecting you from heat and cold. I hate that I came into the tree care industry because I fell in love with trees. Now, I cut them down because I know how to cut them down safely. It friggin sucks. Free market my a..

In my own inner conflict with this, I have come to disagree with Shigo that putting a tree to death is better than topping the tree. Customer relations is crucial, but alllowing that tree to live in our f....d up times is the first priority. I cant stand killing trees. I will top them before killing them. I know that will cause a huplaaa, but really that is the way that I feel.

In the end, what I have found is; who cares what grows above the ground. What matters is how much life is below ground. Trees are a by-product of a healthy earth.

Death to Ortho.

Kevin
From The Earth Services
Detroit, Michigan
 
yes, your right alves. A tree that is topped automatically becomes a hazard.

However, when it is an issue of death or topping. ie: the customer wants a tree, but not such a big tree. I will guide the customer through what that decision means. Capitalism screws things up a bit, nothing I can do about that at the moment.
All said, I know that for a sixty year old couple, the options are.

1) have a big tree that scares them.
Some people are scared. I have found that there is nothing I can do about that irrational fear of trees.

2)kill the tree and have nothing. replace it with a baby
that will take twenty years to be considered a tree. (or a fast growing, eventually problem tree like hybrid poplar.)

3)top the tree, and feel comfortable for the last 15 years of their lives. (by doing this, they must commit to manage their tree every two-three years).

I pick three any day of the week.

What I hope to create is a life long relationship between myself and the the tree. How can we get this particular tree to get along with the paranoid humans that happen to live under that tree? To me, the tree has to be number one. A doctor doesn't look at a patient and think "this patient should be killed because spending the rest of their lives on a respirator with constant maintanence will be a lot of work".

No. For me, we have to do what we have to do to keep humans happy with trees. Yes, we need to educate, we need to argue about the facts of detrimental topping. When there is a big cavity half way up a silver maple, when the elderly couple below is afraid to eat on their porch for fear of a big limb crashing down. Hell yeah, I'll top the tree in a second.

The old couple still has shade. They are not afraid to eat on their back porch, they understand what is going on with their tree. They will have a full explanation of what will occur. They realize that the tree, just like their lawn requires a healthy soil to survive. they understand the difference between a monocot and a dicot and what a "broadleaf herbicide" really means, they understand why their tree became scary in the first place. BUT THEY STILL HAVE THEIR TREE!!
They also begin composting, they cancel their subcription to the death dealers (true green) and they develop a true bond to their land.
Whatever the case, topping is not the worst thing that is happening to trees at the moment. As a group, we need to get over that and focus on the earth and what 90% of homeowners are doing to their soil that is causing us as arborists to deal with the question of topping v. removal in the first place. Intienden?

kevin
 
one thing that people assume about a topped tree is that it is topped once and that is the end of it. That is rarely the case. For those that choose misguidedly to top their trees for the most part end up caring for that tree bi- yearly if not yearly.

I totally agree, its stupid. To me though, its better than killing a healthy tree just cause someone is scared. Death to the tree, I think, is even stupider. Green leaves are green leaves. shade is shade. oxygen is oxygen.


enough rambling by me. I need to go to bed.
kevin
 
Kevin you make my point perfectly. If you can extend the aesthetic and enviromental benifits of the tree for another 20 years, then you have done a good thing.
Unfortunately there are those who will refuse to see this picture and call you a hack, no better than someone who uses spikes to prune. (which I have NEVER done)

I'm sick of getting called a hack by certain individuals, despite putting forward my very valid reasons for occasionaly reducing trees hard or leaving standing stems for habitat reasons.
 
[ QUOTE ]
im getting fed up of your insults treeco

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but you can speak and type Bullman. Imagine being a tree that has been insulted and your only recourse is expressing visual blight and dropping an occasional limb on passers by who were not even the real perp in the first place.

If I had my way topped trees would die on the last "pruning cut" and shed all of their bark instantly before the "Arborist" got back on the ground. Then while standing in a pile of bark the "Arborist" could explain his tree care theology to the tree owner.

Dan

Photo is a 26 DBH red oak a couple of miles from here.
41802-NeanderthalOak.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 41802-NeanderthalOak.webp
    41802-NeanderthalOak.webp
    68.2 KB · Views: 63
Here is a photo from my collection of tree parts.

This tree died nine(9) years after being topped. Each of the topped cuts looked like the one in this photo in the way in which they re-grew.

The sprouts show nine(9) annual growth rings with the oldest ones being the largest and the last rings being so small that they are hard to see. The last growth rings are less than 1/10 the size of the first growth rings from right after the tree was topped. Then the whole tree died.

There were no limbs on the tree that I could find that did not re-sprout after the topping treatment. I interpret this as a sign that the tree was vigorously growing at the time of it's hacking.

Note the rams horns and the very weak attachments points these sprouts had to the tree.

Trees speak softly but photos of the damage they endure speak louder than words.

Dan
 

Attachments

  • 41804-DisectedToppedTree.webp
    41804-DisectedToppedTree.webp
    103.8 KB · Views: 169
[ QUOTE ]
3)top the tree, and feel comfortable for the last 15 years of their lives. (by doing this, they must commit to manage their tree every two-three years).



[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Kevin how do you 'manage' the rams horns in the trees you top and go back and inspect?

Most of the defects are not visible until the tree is dissected.

My point is that you only 'think' you are managing the trees risk of failure. The reality is there is no way of knowing exactly how well limbs are attached on a topped tree.

The reasoning that a tree that poses a risk and has had that risk reduced by topping is faulty. Suggesting that the same arborist can come back periodically and make risk assessments based on parts of the tree that he can not see or measure leaves that arborist liable.

It is easy for a court to decide if the arborist contributed to the increase risk by topping the tree.

I think it is a good thing.

Attached is a photo of the same dissected tree limb from the top. Can you predict the rams horns that show in the other photo. I can not but sure wish I could.

Dan
 

Attachments

  • 41806-DissectedToppedTree1.webp
    41806-DissectedToppedTree1.webp
    102.8 KB · Views: 123
I have had a small percentage of customers if I "topp" trees. I simply say no and educate them with this. This goes into my estimate package. If we take the time to relay the researched facts, then the customer agrees that is a horrible practice.
 

Attachments

I have only had to walk away from one job
(ONE)in this situation. Some folks wanted a beautiful Linden topped. I refused, educated, they still insisted. I walked away. End of story.

The point is I take the time (maybe 2-5 minutes) to explain the facts. I tell them to read over the information I got from the ISA. I know I create customers for life when I take a little extra time with them.

Customers for life reap huge profits!!! Topping for the quick buck it narrow minded.--Not thinking out of the box.---Ignorance.--Shall I go on?

Sorry! Had to vent a little, but still attacked no one, right? /forum/images/graemlins/avid.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom