treelooker
Treehouser
they missed a spots--stoppayment on their check and get em back!
Good you did; all those stubs back to the knuckle now, if you please!Oh, they will have to do it all over, I had a talk with the management
Oh, they will have to do it all over, I had a talk with the management
Good you did; all those stubs back to the knuckle now, if you please!
Here's a tickle taken out of a liriodendron with a Humongous Hole (~50% circ., >80% hollow)mid-stem. All cuts to nodes that presently have laterals. left 2 lower limbs alone--not much impact on stability, and they nourish the woundwood around the canker.
Plus the limbs were over the neighbors' yard and essentially their problem. :001_rolleyes:
Lightens the load, c u in 3 years to restore. Prognosis: sprouting at cuts 1-2'/year, able to take off 1/3 next time to mitigate crowding and bad forks.
1. Get the 2008 version; it's still a "should", which as you accurately point out can definitely be disregarded by anyone, especially if they read and apply the whole subclause: "...The percentage and distribution...*shall* be adjusted...species, age, health and site." Shalls are requirements, shoulds are not.So, the lesson learned here is that if the client wants you to turn their tree into a hat rack, as long as you are a BCMA, you can disregard ANSI A-300 5.6.2.2. ...."not more than 25 percent of the crown should be removed within n annul growing season"
Also I get a little ( just a tiny bit, mind you) tired of the American " Shigo is God" mentality.
Of course I am trying offer more reasonable options, but "the customer is always right ..." If I refuse to do this work, it will make other ...P.S. Tomorrow I'll to do a photo of those tree, which I have reduced in one... P.S. Tomorrow I'll to do a photo of those tree, which I have reduced in one fell swoop ...Shoulds are shoulds because they are Best Management Practices. If one is under no onus to follow them, then perhaps they *should* be omitted altogether. I fail to see how solving one potential problem for your client's tree is justified by creating additional problems. Shoot / root imbalances, reduction in photosynthesis, heartwood exposures, etc.
My mom got diagnosed a couple of years ago with advanced stage Ovarian cancer, to which she rapidly succumbed. The quality of her life was diminished by electing to take Chemo which produced terrible nausea. I doubt it extended her life by one day. Unless that cavity was caused by the impact of a meteriorite, I fail to see why that tree has not had lots of years to create CODIT boundaries, and form reaction wood.
So please tell me why you felt it was necessary to aggressively prune this poor tree in one fell swoop? Did you acquiesce to the client's wishes against your better judgement?
So if the customer asks you to fill some cavities with rocks and concrete.....
I'd go right ahead and do it.
Some of us have to make a living.
Tomorrow I'll to do a photo of those tree, which I have reduced in one fell swoop ...
To each his own, but I'm trying to leave a different legacy then be remembered as a hack.
I have killed more than 100000 trees, that will be my legacy.
If that makes me a hack in your eues, I can live with that.
I look forward to seeing a tree that has been Maximalistized.