|
| I have a native American Linden that offers invaluable shade from the south. However it doesn't have the greatest branching structure.
One arborist suggested tree cables due to the proximity to the garage. Another arborist suggested taking it down in the near future but didn't see any immediate danger. I'd like to keep it for about 5 years to allow other surrounding trees to get "some" size. What would you do? Take it down, cable it long term, leave it as is long term or cut it down in 5 years
|
Follow-Up Postings:
|
- Posted by ken_adrian z5 (My Page) on Mon, Sep 3, 12 at 11:26
| house new tree old and horribly structured .... dont you have a fireplace in that gorgeous new house???? be done with it.. sooner it goes.. the sooner a replacement can get in there.. get established.. and take care of shading the garage ... do plan to do it when it is bare.. then all the chips will be wood only .. and will make a nice new mulched bed right there ... what was that from some other post i was supposed to remember.. its an opportunity for something much better ... i have some larch.. olgensis.. or something like that.. too lazy to look.. only grows about 200 feet per year ... school bus yellow after the first frost.. and then rather dense enough to add some winter shade.. or that DR you have been thinking about???? ken oh alright.. i will look it up for you: Larix gmelinii var. olgensis |
|
- Posted by wisconsitom 4/5 WI (My Page) on Mon, Sep 3, 12 at 11:54
| Whaas, we-the municipal forestry dept with whom I am employed (Okay, I'm actually in Engineering now but that's beside the point)-used to cable trees. Now we never do. I've got to be honest, I don't remember exactly why we've discontinued this practice. It seems most likely that it has been deemed not worthwhile in some sense, probably basic effectiveness. Tues, I could actually inquire since the reasoning totally escapes me at the moment. In any case, that tree would have been a classic case for cabling, and maybe rodding too, the drilling through both sections and placement of a threaded rod with big washers on the ends, seated not against bark but against the wood itself following a careful job with a chisel. But.......I'm more inclined to agree with Ken. Terrible structure, a common species not in any danger of disappearing from the landscape, and some excellent alternative options that you, a tree enthusiast, are well aware of. +oM |
|
| Well, two respected opinions so it looks like it might be time. I'd likely take it down early or late winter so there is less stress on the turf. Its a shame this 30 year old tree has to go. I only got one quote so far. $700 plus $150 to grid the stump. Tom, you have any suggestions for someone? I know you are just over an hour from me but perhaps you know of someone in Fond du Lac. |
|
| Since I don't work for Tom's city's municipal forestry department, this is only a guess, but I'd think they likely stopped cabling and rodding because of the inspections and maintenance required when using these options. It's one thing to decide to keep up with what needs to be done for your own tree in your own yard; it's another to keep up with possibly hundreds of trees. And if the city forgot one of the trees, then there's the possible liability. It's just simpler for a city to abandon the practice, at least as a widely used solution. It's not unusual at all for a municipality to cable a historically significant specimen. With your tree, in your yard, it's really your decision on what to do. From what we can see in the pictures, the tree looks perfectly healthy, so I see no reason not to consider the option. I'd personally question the reasoning behind the second arborist's recommendation. For one thing, if you aren't going to support it but it's in need of support, wouldn't it make sense to remove it ASAReasonablyP? Did he/she even consider other options? Cabling and rodding is a practice that can be highly effective and much less problematic than many seem to think. There are considerations, just as there are with anything. This case seems to be more about what's important to you than what needs to be done (unless there are things the pictures don't show). |
|
| To tell you the truth the only thing I care about right now is shade. I'd be willing to invest in cables if it means keeping the tree in tact for 5-10 years. But some folks have me thinking that it might be best to sacrifice 5-10 years of no shade to get a well structured tree. Ah decisions, decisions! |
|
| Ah decisions, decisions! I'll bet ken has a shiny penny...to flip! I'd say that a temporary safety fix for 5 years would be worth it. A lot of included bark there. If you do cable it, the higher, the stronger the fix. and +oM's comment about removing the bark so that the washer(s) are in contact with the wood is right on. hortster |
|
- Posted by ken_adrian z5 (My Page) on Mon, Sep 3, 12 at 17:27
| hey lucy.. splain to me.. why its so imperative that your garage be shaded???? i think part of it is heated.. but it isnt air conditioned.. is it??? 700 bucks is a great price for removal ... and if you used the chips to make a new bed.. just cut the stump flush.. and plant 3 feet to both sides of it... apply a little roundup ... cover it with mulch.. i like to think of stumps as a pretty cool long term biology experiment ... what with the mushrooms.. etc .... and i really dont see you spending hours out on this side of the lot.. couldnt you simply forget it is there.. while you sit in the back.. gazing over your collection??? $150 bucks could buy a lot of specimen plants ... well a few anyway ... ken |
|
| In its current position it is shading the garage but it shades my master bedroom from southwest and a massive part of the yard from the west. These plants do not need 10-14 hours and slows the evaporation from an already dry sloped area. Tree is about 50' tall. More facts always help right? All, thanks for all the dialog thus far. Quotes will continue, including cabling. If I go the latter at least I can speak about potential technique if necessary. |
|
| In looking at the tree, one question comes to mind. What is the orientation of the major Y to the garage? If the Y is perpendicular to the garage, there is a higher probability that the trunk will fall into the garage when the Y breaks than if the Y is parallel to the garage. If it is parallel to the garage the odds are that the trunk will fall parallel to that garage doing little damage. If a minor branch makes a Y perpendicular to the garage you may consider cutting it of, but again if wind does break the tree the odds are it will be the bigger trunks. Personally I think it adds interest to the yard. |
|
- Posted by wisconsitom 4/5 WI (My Page) on Mon, Sep 3, 12 at 21:56
| One other thought, one with which I expect little buy-in; Could the garage-ward half of the tree be removed? Yes yes, a large "scar" will be visible but in truth, that wound exposed is of no more consequence than it is now in its hidden state. Yes, the canopy will lose a lot of substance, but regrowth will be heavy in all the newly accessible light streaming in. Just a thought. Maybe a dumb thought, but a thought nonetheless. +oM |
|
| Taking into consideration the probably large change in aesthetics, the partial loss of shade, the inevitable change in wind-load exposure, and the eventual introduction of rot through the large wound...I personally would remove all or none of the tree. |
|
| I have a large, mature Norway maple that has similar conjoined trunks. Two arborists both suggested cabling rather than taking it down, as it's in excellent health, and just plain a nice big old tree. Cabling was much cheaper, and there's little chance of it coming down on part of the house, which is almost as tall as the tree. It would take years for another tree to grow to a comparable size. vince |
|
| That is my exact dilema. That pine in the bottom right is 6' x 4' to give a bit of perspective. The height to the gutter on the house is 10'. |
|
- Posted by wisconsitom 4/5 WI (My Page) on Tue, Sep 4, 12 at 18:17
| Well, today came and went without me ever thinking to inquire what our status is regarding cabling/bracing. Quite simply slammed with other concerns. But in answer to what Brandon wrote, while it is undoubtedly true that a large wound would result from the operation I suggested, the subsequent rot would not outpace the timeline Whaas says he needs to retain the tree for. I'd also posit that rot is already underway within that trunk union, just hidden from view at the moment. I'd probably remove the tree. I actually like basswoods but they are extremely common. There's so many conifers-big full-size things I'm talking-that could do a good job in that spot. And IMO, they do not take long to achieve considerable size. +oM |
|
| I agree that IF the tree is to be removed anyway in just a few years, the potential for the introduction of rot would not be a consideration. However, the other things would still concern me. Without having first-hand knowledge of all the specifics, it's hard to tell exactly what the positives and negatives would be in keeping the tree and/or removing one of the main trunks, but I'd think going to lots of trouble to keep a tree for only five years would not be worthwhile in most situations. Just for example, if the other trees are expected to take over in five years, isn't the tree in question limiting their development now? Would the cost of cabling pay off in utility savings in five years or less? Is the decrease (or possibly even increase, depending on the specifics) in chances of problematic failure, when one trunk is removed, worth the trouble? |
|
| If you want to know whats taking over, check out pic 2 to the right. A baby Ironwood!lol! I plan to put a "faster" growing narrow plant that is very drought tolerant. It would go to the left. Perhaps an Everclear Elm. Only reason I haven't planted there is I want to allow the plant cutter downer some room. They can drop the tree right on top of those scraggly shrubs to the bottom left in pic 3. |
|
| I see basswoods with really poor trunk and branch angles and they don't seem to be young trees... they've been that way for a while. Are they a relatively strong tree? What I'm thinking is that it might not be as big a problem as you think. I'd keep it and enjoy the shade until you completely run out of room and need the planting area. |
|
- Posted by wisconsitom 4/5 WI (My Page) on Wed, Sep 5, 12 at 18:24
| So it turns out that someone above-was it Brandon?-correctly surmised the reason why our Forestry division no longer does cabling and bracing. Liability! Once so done, we have admitted to knowing of a problem with that tree. In today's litigious society, that sets us up for lawsuits should some calamity affect someone's private property or wellbeing sometime down the line. So a properly executed cabling job is a perfectly reasonable thing to do with your own tree. And yes, a part of this consists of having the arborist make periodic inspections. +oM |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Trees Forum
Instructions
- You must be a registered member and logged in to post messages on our forums.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review the contents and make changes.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- It is illegal to post copyrighted material without the owner's consent.
- HTML codes are allowed in the message field only.
- No advertising is allowed in any of the forums.
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.