What's the Definition of Snake Oil Sales in the Tree Biz?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jomo
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 83
  • Views Views 7K
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #76
So what you are saying is that people are selling and putting cobra systems into 'unflawed/healthy tree branches'...surely that is the fault of the operator, not the product.

It's the product and its very purpose I object to Berm.

It's peddled as an alternative to conventional static bracing because of its noninvasive terminations, its supposed ability to withstand the elements for 10 years.

Conventional cabling with static lines has always acknowledged that their use weakens whatever they're supporting, and therefor designed to provide a lifetime of support to the degree possible.

Just the fact that I can traditionally cable with throughbolts two 24 inch Alnus rhombifolia leaders and apply up to 4 tons of pull to either connection, with no ill affects to the tree? That says something.

Just try that with a girdling cobra termination.

When an arborist makes the determination to cable or brace for whatever reason?

It's a lifetime deal.

Jomo
 
Ah there's the thing, using either system to support a flawed branch/union whatever...the point it its flawed and you have made a choice to use a system to support it or mitgate a total failure in favour of drastic pruning or removal.

So you are not using your static cables in a healthy branch, I would assume that an installer of cobra is not either.

I see points for and against for either system in a flawed branch, but NONE in a healthy one. Duh
 
I see points for and against for either system in a flawed branch, but NONE in a healthy one. Duh

So if 100 arborists looked at 2 branches, what are the odds that a majority would agree on 'flawed' and 'healthy'?

Slim, and Nun.

That dead horse stiull twitchin? Time for a mercy killing.
 
Let's order pizza!

dominos-pizza.jpg
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #80
Got a camera?

You can lean on Telewski all you want but I think he would agree with the rationale for occasional use of dynamic, as thigmo...is sometimes too slow.

Got even one instance of Telewski actually doing what you theorize he has Guy?

I thought not. Why whether it's artificial support's documented weakening affects on trees, or Armillaria's presence in a tree's base being adequate reason to remove it when it has targets?

You oh wise one, so consistently disagree with PhD credentialed folks far more qualified than you.

Just sayin you think Telewski would disagree with his own documented and peer reviewed findings on thigmo?

Doesn't make it so in any sense. It's just you grasping for straws cuz yu goofed.

Do you seriously consider yourself as well credentialed as Telewski on this subject? That it's some kinda coincidence he and I agree?

Are you suffering from the bends or somethin old friend?

Jomo
 
Give trees a hand!

I think houses work well as braces, don't you?
 

Attachments

  • IMGA0097.JPG
    IMGA0097.JPG
    127.2 KB · Views: 34
  • IMGA0104.JPG
    IMGA0104.JPG
    116.3 KB · Views: 34
  • IMGA0117.JPG
    IMGA0117.JPG
    116 KB · Views: 34
  • IMGA0143.JPG
    IMGA0143.JPG
    125.9 KB · Views: 34
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #82
So you claim your sources that advocate dynamic cabling are being misquoted when they only recommend dynamic bracing for a limited two period, to compensate for structurally impaired roots until new growth roots form?

I musta missed the part where anybody other than yourself recommends dynamic artitificial cabling or bracing for un structurally compromised trees/saplings or branches.

You claim Telewski agrees with you? Yet provide no evidence of any PhD plant biologist at all actually doing so.

The civil thing to do here is documenting your assertions with reputable corroboration links, as I've done Guy.

Jomo
 
You misquoted FT when you spun his 'preferably' into 'absolutely' re staking. That ended the civil conversation. The thread is dead.
 

Attachments

  • DSC01877.JPG
    DSC01877.JPG
    126 KB · Views: 25
  • gfca canopy.JPG
    gfca canopy.JPG
    57 KB · Views: 24
  • boyette closure 2008 small.jpg
    boyette closure 2008 small.jpg
    325 KB · Views: 25
  • red oak cavity caption.jpg
    red oak cavity caption.jpg
    176 KB · Views: 25
  • gfca conk.JPG
    gfca conk.JPG
    93.8 KB · Views: 25
  • RR ice specs.jpg
    RR ice specs.jpg
    431.8 KB · Views: 25
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #84
You misquoted FT when you spun his 'preferably' into 'absolutely' re staking. That ended the civil conversation. The thread is dead.

I saw no Cobra dynamic cabling, bracing, or anything supporting your butchered oak tree Guy, why is that?

So Telewski's conclusion that removing dynamic support is best after two years at most, somehow translates into his agreeing with you that dynamic support for ten years using Cobra is best?

And to document that for us you post pics of twenty year old hat racked oaks with no artificial support system at all.

All that leading to a royal French decree of death to the un civil peasant's thread?

Do I get one last cigarette your highness?

Jomo:)
 
Back
Top