The question here though is what are you going to do once the tree starts falling apart? It will still need to be removed! It almost always costs more to remove a decaying tree than it does a live one. Seems like you are shooting yourself in the foot here.

Also, isn't there somewhere else you could put your garden. Seems a real shame to remove an oak that big just for your garden. Once again, to me, it seems you are shooting yourself in the foot here.

By the way, even the biggest tree hugger cant get around this one. Let me be clear, I don't want to kill this tree, I need to.
Brandon, no disrespect, but what does size matter? As I stated, there are hundreds of these trees in a short distance of each other. No shame here.

If the tree is healthy and no danger to life, than adjust the garden rather than kill the tree.

There should be some shade thiving garden items which will prosper under the shade of that tree.

I know, because as a kid I saw my mother gowing a huge garden in which the biggest pear tree I have ever seen grew in the middle. She harvest abundandly from that garden, and the different food she grew not only grew in full sun, but there were also food items she grew which prospered under the shade of the pear tree.

She sometimes would repeat to me her story of when there was a time, early on, when she also hated that a pear tree, which seemed to rob part of her garden from full sun, so she decided to try and kill it by throwing, under its canopy and on its rootflare, any of the waste water she could collect from the house. The tree never died though, instead it grew larger, healthier, and started producing the best pears ever.

That is when she changed her mind and opened her imagination to discover garden food which would grow in the shade under that tree.

The soil in her garden where the infamous pear tree grew consisted of huge amounts of sand. It was the same sandy loam type soil (situated nextdoor to her garden) in which was perfect for my dad to grow 10 acres filled with different types of cantaloupe and watermellons.

True an oak tree will not provide lots of wonderful fruit, but, still it must be much more sane and lot less work to adjust the garden, rather than destroy that majestic old tree. For all you know the fertile quality of the topsoil created by the natural life cycle of that tree is most likely the very thing which has made your garden soil so full of nutrient rich humus which probably is a big asset for conditioning the soil for certain garden items to prosper.

I assume you have plenty of room to drop it if cut down.
Get the word out to someone who has a big saw and needs fire wood.
I had this problem with a very large oak I was trying to cut down,make your notch cut so your tree will fall were you want it,then on the opposite side make another notch high enough to fit you saw into,it may take a while but you should be able to bring it down.
Also be extra carefull because you can't use wedges this way.
If the tree has a strait trunk it may be worth something for lumber?

lp

Call a tree guy and just have it taken down. Bite the bullet on cost. Do the right way, and end it's life quickly, instead of a slow death, distressing to everyone, and posing a danger as well. Use it's wood for burning, or give it away. You can also donate it to a carver who I'm sure would love to have it for making furniture, etc.

11 oak trees on a 2 acre piece of property could become a money generating venture, by using the oak litter to create compost and to offer the compost for sale either as an internet busisness or by shipping it to cities for suppliers.

There are many people who live in houses that are built on lots where the virgin soil is clay, and it is easier for them to make lasagnia gardens then try to reconditon the virgin soil only. Well you might not know it, but whole and chopped up oak leaves are some of the very best things to include when making a lasagnia garden.

Consider all the new housing additions in cities where builders scrape most of the good top soil off a lot before they build, and only spread 4 or less inches of sand on top of the hardpan once the house is built. The people who move into those houses quickly learn now devoid of any good soil their lot has even to grow basic landscaping.

Why do you think people who purchase such homes invest in installing landscape beds. Do not close your eyes to the value the oak litter on your property offers.

As a kid I grew-up with no appreciation for the value of the dirt I had to sweep away to keep the environment tidy. Or the water flowing from the brook nearby.

Back then who was right, me? No, now many people pay for bags of dirt which is no where close as fertile as the stuff I swept away and devalued. Today, people also pay extra for water in bottles that is not as beneficial for the body's needs as the water in the nearby brook, that very same water, which I held no awareness of its value.

Believe it or not; your oak leaves and shedding branches with their bark, can be a good source of revenue for you or some other enterprising person, who you might allow to come and harvest them from your lot.

Back to your original question about the leaf drop....do you know what kind of oak it is? That will partially determine how long it will take to defoliate.

The lumber idea above might be a very good idea....I bet there are people that would remove it for you for the wood, especially if you could wait until they are in your area and had time.

BTW, for what it's worth, I don't agree with Cascadians' opinion above. I love trees. They are valuable resources, but they are not like holy cows or anything. Cutting one will not mean the end of the world.

Crews with the equipment to began clearing the first plots used the excuse, "Why not harvest the trees? There is much need for the revenue to sell the wood, and much need for the cleared land for farming or living developments. After all there are thousands of miles of rain forests surely the what we take will not hurt."

90 percent of those statements and excuses they used were true. Only thing, they left out the part about a high percentage of the forest floors which were harvested turned into dessert.

If that is not bad enough, current total change impact from the total acivity which began only with one small harvesting; yet is still ongoing and it is no longer only a little part of the rain forest which were removed, has even changed the rain patterns of the area which were previously not considered deserts. Some of these areas which weren't even part of the rainforest floor are now becoming desserts because of the climate changes that have been cause due to the first rain forest excavation, which did not stop there, but has turned into a thriving business. Only it is a bad business, which destroys the the very things which are needed to supply the valuable products they seek.

A person who does not see value in oak leaves and bark or wood that a mature oak tree sheds, is very likely to whenever the whim arises, destroy the others if even if each time, just for the excuse and reasoning which says "who cares, I still will be left with more than just this one I am taking."

I kind of tend to agree somewhat with what you just posted and definitely understand your feelings, but to play devil's advocate.....

Do you use paper? Do you have a grass lawn? How about any wooden furniture? Do you drive a polluting vehicle instead of walking or biking? If so how can you be so certain that what Mailman wants to do is any worse than what you routinely do?

My point is that many here are judging Mailman pretty harshly without putting their selves in his shoes. I spend a lot of my time working to improve the environment. Heck, if I told you what I've done just today, you'd think I was some kind of environmental nutcase, but I digress. I'm a member of the Sierra club and the Nature Conservancy. I have my own arboretum and work on the board of directors of another arboretum. When I hear someone talking about cutting down a big healthy oak, I'm at least somewhat puzzled. Still, I can imagine some cases where I would remove such a tree. Taking one step toward a slippery slope doesn't mean you are bound to slide to the bottom of the hill!

It IS mailman's property, and he has indicated that there are plenty more trees currently residing there. I'm an oak enthusiast, but if this one is in his way, and he desires that it no longer impede his gardening progress, then he's well within his rights to kill or remove it. It may seem a shame, but it's not the end of the world.

If you do choose to girdle this tree, you'd be well-advised to treat the exposed cambium layer at the lower edge of your girdling cut with a herbicide labeled for 'stump treatment', otherwise, the roots may remain alive and you'll be dealing with numerous stump sprouts.
I cut down &/or girdle & herbicide-treat, on a regular basis, trees in my pastures, at the edge of my woods, and yes, even in my established hardwood forest. Sometimes you have to eliminate undesirable &/or unmarketable trees in order to release more desirable seedlings and give them the opportunity to thrive.

Destroying a tree with that much history is hard to think about. My neighbors have a huge oak right in the middle of their back yard on a half acre lot and have a beautiful veggie garden every year.

This probably sounds weird but I home-school and we use the tree for a fun history lesson by taking turns making up stories about what historical events may have occurred while the tree was growing.

But he wants to cut it down for maybe 300 dollars worth of vegetables.

I think he works for the government.

Not if the tree is Acer platanoides! What a scourge that tree is! Non-native, dense aggressive canopies, greedy allelopathic roots, and about a million seedlings sprouting everywhere.

I had two 50 year old Norway maples removed last November by a tree service, and had a buddy girdle two others for me last Spring. One of the girdled trees was completely topped - the other girdled tree did leaf out this Spring, although it is not as leafy or green as the one remaining healthy Norway maple (that one will probably be removed too). Girdling will kill the tree, but it is a slow death. Apparently, it takes a year or two for a girdled tree to completely die. Eventually there will be great wildlife benefit to a standing dead tree, as long as it's in a spot where there's no risk of it falling on anything.

While I am enjoying the new gardens where the sun didn't used to shine (which is nowhere under a large Norway), if these trees had been nice old native trees, I would not have removed them. Would have created woodland gardens instead.

I am with the group who say to take the tree down now, and not wait for it to need to come down in a hurry due to falling branches, which it may do if you girdle it. I might leave it as a tall - 8-10', up to 15-20' - stump, and let it rot naturally, maybe using it to grow vines up. Of course, this means foregoing most of the timber/firewood value, but it would seem that that isn't a factor in your thinking anyway. I WOULD follow Lucky P's suggestion and paint the edges of the stump, however tall you leave it, with a woody/brush killer herbicide, to limit the number of sprouts coming up from the roots.

Unless it's in decline, or damaged, that's usually a mistake. A ten or twenty thousand dollar mistake.

You say it's ugly and maybe it is. If so have it cut down for lumber or firewood. Might find someone to do it for the wood.

lp

I took down a Gigantic Maple but had to because the 25" diameter trunk was about 15 inches from my house.

I couldn't figure out where to put my garden when I moved here but instead of taking down trees I pruned some and "moved" the garden.

Spend $1000 and hire someone to take it down. Done in 1 day! Tell them you'll keep the wood!

Enjoy spending the money cooling your home more now.

lp

Seriously, the man came here looking for help with a problem. One person saying "Oh no, don't cut down the tree!" was reasonable. Maybe even a second person trying to come up with an alternative was fair. But after he's made it clear that this is what he wants, no, NEEDS, to do with his property, harassing him about his choice is RUDE. If you can't offer him some helpful advise, leave him alone!

That said, I'm still curious as to what you did. I have a HUGE magnolia I'm going to have to cut down soon, I'd like to know how your choice turned out for you.

I say if he wants to cut down the tree, fine do it. It is fair to say it is his property, and therefore his decision. When you ask about cutting down a healthy, old, native tree that isn't threatening to damage your property on a forum about trees you'd be silly to think that the people who love those old native trees are not going to speak up.

I am fortunate enough to have an agronomist with me at work, here is the solution:

Buy a Triclopyr-based product like Garlon 4 Ultra:
http://www.dowagro.com/ivm/utility/prod/garlon4ultra.htm
the ether-based solutions work best. If you can't get Triclopyr, Clopyralid or Glyphosate are possible substitutes.

In early spring apply a basal bark treatment every 2 weeks, 3-5 times in all. If this is insufficient, drill a ring of 2-3mm holes all around the trunk, downwards about 3cm deep and inject the product pure.

Good luck.

To echo what others have said - if you haven't had it taken down already - poke around and find someone w/ a portable sawmill. You could then have the tree taken down, sawn into lumber on-site, and the remainder would make great firewood. Oftentimes the sawyer will cut the wood for a share of the lumber, and charge you very little.

Plus, you get firewood and wonderful lumber you can have kiln-dried and sell or turn into furniture. Use the proceeds to buy a couple saplings and plant 'em. :)

Could you just extremely trim/thin limbs to let more light, in? If it dies then its what you wanted, but a dead tree is better horizontal than vertical.
I had to cut down an old huge double trunk oak in '08 and it was sad and quietly erie for days after. Both upper trunks were hollow (struck by lightening twice)but it was growing like crazy. It was very slanted and it creaked. I had the stump left at 3 ft and there is a ring of babies coming up around it. Without it, the nearby flower bed has taken a big sun-damage hit.I really really hate to take any tree down.
I also deeply agree with the poster who wished people would get as worked up about saving unborn humans as we do about saving trees.
Gardening is good for your body, mind, and spitit, the "$300" in produce is just a bonus. If yours has to be in that spot, go for it.

Hint to all: NEVER let a firewood dealer 'trim' your trees.

-Werner J Stiegler
Director Binghamton Memorial Tree Program
www.binghamtonmemorialtree.webs.com

From the data I've seen, it is simply not true that there were more trees in the US, 200 years ago, than there are today (unless you try to cheat by leaving out Alaska which wasn't part of our country then). According to the US Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis Program (they are THE experts on this), there was considerably more forested land 200 years ago than today. Even at the all-time low (around 1920), there was only slightly less forest land than there is today.

Besides this, in the mid 1600's there were over a billion acres of forested land. We now have less than three quarters of that. Even if the comment above was restated to compare today with the early 1900's, why would anyone want to brag that we are slightly better than we were at our worst, when we had devastated a large part of this natural resource?

I've heard others discount our nation's need for conserving our nation's resources of trees, but it always seems to me that these people either refuse to review the facts or intentionally try to cover up the facts to back up their misguided viewpoint.

One only needs to look around to see what is happening.

Also deceptive, timber companies claims about how many trees are planted for each one cut down. It is disingenuous at the least to not state the obvious-that old growth forests are being decimated and replaced with largely monoculture stands which will never be allowed to develop to anything like full maturity. I'm not against timber harvesting per se but I am very much against forest genetic simplification and short rotations. And this is where things are headed.

+oM