Are there resources on the web on how to prune a douglas fir tree (about 70
feet tall) to prevent wind damage?

Seems to have gotten to 70' without much problem? Did it know it had to be
pruned??

--
Mike LaMana, MS, CTE
Heartwood Consulting Services, LLC
Toms River, NJ
www.HeartwoodConsulting.net



"peter" wrote in message
news:x8egd.5308$jD4.284@trnddc06...
Are there resources on the web on how to prune a douglas fir tree (about
70 feet tall) to prevent wind damage?

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:11:41 +0000, peter wrote:

Are there resources on the web on how to prune a douglas fir tree (about
70 feet tall) to prevent wind damage?

What are the reasons for your concerns? Has the tree thrown branches or
does it have a lean? In general you really shouldn't worry much about the
tree and at 70 feet it sounds a little less than middle aged. One thing to
remember *not* to have done to the tree is to have it topped. This
will only create a problem tree that will throw branches. If you really
feel that the tree has isses with wind throw and wish to have it thinned,
then have it "windowed". This is when some of the branches are thinned out
of the tree as to let wind to pass through more easily. Other than that,
leave the tree well alone or have it completly removed (in my humble
opinion.)

--
Trees are like children, train them right when their young.....
or spend a lifetime trying to correct them.

The circumstances of the this kind of tree matter. "Planted" douglas firs in
a yard will develop independent storm sturdy root systems. Douglas firs in
northwestern forests are almost always part of dense stands with
interlocking root systems. It has been common in many of the newer housing
developments, to clear cut douglas fir forests, leaving only a few specimens
here and there for "interest". These trees are VERY susceptible to blowing
over in storms, which they do with great regularity every winter. Ultimately
they will all fall, leaving a lot of people with damaged homes and yards and
higher home insurance rates. In that circumstance, I'd probably opt to have
the douglas fir removed, rather than try to prune it.
"peter" wrote in message
news:x8egd.5308$jD4.284@trnddc06...
Are there resources on the web on how to prune a douglas fir tree (about
70
feet tall) to prevent wind damage?

peter wrote:
Are there resources on the web on how to prune a douglas fir tree (about 70
feet tall) to prevent wind damage?


I don't know of any resources but what you are looking for is called
"windowing" it removes branches in layers to reduce the wind resistance.

--
Travis in Shoreline Washington

"peter" wrote in message
news:x8egd.5308$jD4.284@trnddc06...
Are there resources on the web on how to prune a douglas fir tree (about
70
feet tall) to prevent wind damage?

Unless you are trained for this type of tree work with all the necessary
equipment, the only resource you need is the phone number of a certified
arborist. One does NOT prune or window a 70' Doug fir without having a great
deal of tree pruning experience under one's belt - translate: do this for a
living. To even consider doing this on your own is foolhardy in the extreme.
BTW, a certified arborist can give you a hazard assessment first - this will
determine whether or not your tree even needs thinning or windowing to
reduce wind damage.

pam - gardengal

peter wrote:
I just did a more accurate measurement by photographing the tree
alongside with a 12-ft long 4x2 as reference:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0g4dr/douglasfir.jpg
The estimated tree height is at least 92 feet. The tree drops a brance
or two everytime there is a wind storm. These branches are 3 inches in
diameter. Some dented the gutter, one punched a small hole on the
siding, some fell on the roof and made a big bang. That is the
motivation for pruning it.

A few years ago I did hire an arborist to prune the trees (I have
three such trees). It cost me $900. That was the motivation to do it
myself. But I think I'm too chicken to climb the tree myself afterall,
so I may have to find a cheaper arborist...


It's not just a matter of whether you're brave enough to climb the tree.
You need to know what to do, and have the equipment to do it once you
get up there. As you've pointed out, those branches could do a lot of
damage. Not to mention the damage that could happen to you if something
went wrong while you were up there. And how would you know *which*
branches (beyond deadwood) to trim?

There are reasons why it cost you $900. It wasn't just x-many hours of
work. And it wasn't price gouging. It had a lot to do with the training,
experience, and equipment used. The job is more complex than trimming
off a little extra growth from a shrub.

Being chicken to climb the tree should be the least of your reasons for
hiring a professional.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Black & Decker Landscaping Tools & Parts:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker

There was a sad story in the local paper yesterday about a employee of a
tree-trimming firm who died on the job. He was cutting a tree; the tree
fell and hit a stump, and the bottom of the tree "kicked up" and struck him
in the head. There's an investigation underway, but it looks like it was
just a terrible accident, not negligence.

Tree trimming is dangerous business. Add to the costs of training,
equipment, etc, the cost of liability insurance, and the rates of a
reputable firm don't seem all that outrageous.

Sue

--

Zone 6, South-central PA

There are reasons why it cost you $900. It wasn't just x-many hours of
work. And it wasn't price gouging. It had a lot to do with the training,
experience, and equipment used. The job is more complex than trimming off
a little extra growth from a shrub.

Being chicken to climb the tree should be the least of your reasons for
hiring a professional.

--
Warren H.

SugarChile wrote:

There was a sad story in the local paper yesterday about a employee of a
tree-trimming firm who died on the job. He was cutting a tree; the tree
fell and hit a stump, and the bottom of the tree "kicked up" and struck him
in the head. There's an investigation underway, but it looks like it was
just a terrible accident, not negligence.

There might not be negligence but it wasn't "just a terrible accident"
either.

--
Travis in Shoreline Washington

All I know is what I read in the papers......You might be right, I don't
know the details, and I don't know enough about felling trees to extrapolate
what really happened.

My point was, trimming and felling tall trees is dangerous work, even for
the people who are getting paid to do it, and amateurs should think twice.

Sue

--

Zone 6, South-central PA

" SugarChile wrote:

There was a sad story in the local paper yesterday about a employee of a
tree-trimming firm who died on the job. He was cutting a tree; the tree
fell and hit a stump, and the bottom of the tree "kicked up" and struck
him in the head. There's an investigation underway, but it looks like it
was just a terrible accident, not negligence.

There might not be negligence but it wasn't "just a terrible accident"
either.

--
Travis in Shoreline Washington

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:45:33 GMT, Travis
in rec.gardens wrote:

SugarChile wrote:

There was a sad story in the local paper yesterday about a employee of a
tree-trimming firm who died on the job. He was cutting a tree; the tree
fell and hit a stump, and the bottom of the tree "kicked up" and struck him
in the head. There's an investigation underway, but it looks like it was
just a terrible accident, not negligence.

There might not be negligence but it wasn't "just a terrible accident"
either.

Really now?

Please allow how an "accident" is something other than an unplanned for
event.

It comes down to a matter of "how likely" -- as in how likely was it for
the falling tree to hit the stump squarely in order to cause the butt end to
flip? How likely was it for the man to be standing in the correct position
to be hit by the butt-end of the tree?

Of course he could have been more careful. He could have stood several feet
to the side and in so doing he *could* have been hit by a meteor -- much
less likely though.

Cheap accidents are when we do things like pick up a wet glass and it slips
out of our hand and breaks. Fatal accidents are tragic events where we do
not get the chance to say "boy! that was stupid of me!".

FACE

FACE wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:45:33 GMT, Travis
in rec.gardens wrote:


SugarChile wrote:


There was a sad story in the local paper yesterday about a employee of a
tree-trimming firm who died on the job. He was cutting a tree; the tree
fell and hit a stump, and the bottom of the tree "kicked up" and struck him
in the head. There's an investigation underway, but it looks like it was
just a terrible accident, not negligence.

There might not be negligence but it wasn't "just a terrible accident"
either.


Really now?

Really.
You can make all the excuses for him that you want but as a
professional he didn't act very professionally.

--
Travis in Shoreline Washington

Travis Travis.ShorelineWa wrote:

There was a sad story in the local paper yesterday about a employee of a
tree-trimming firm who died on the job. He was cutting a tree; the tree
fell and hit a stump, and the bottom of the tree "kicked up" and struck
him
in the head. There's an investigation underway, but it looks like it was
just a terrible accident, not negligence.

There might not be negligence but it wasn't "just a terrible accident"
either.

Really now?

Really.
You can make all the excuses for him that you want but as a
professional he didn't act very professionally.

You say a tree hitting a stump means a tree faller is not professional.
That is a strange conclusion. First, tree fallers don't claim to be
professionals. Second, as skilled tradesmen, they can never be sure how
a tree is going to react when it comes down. Tons of force are at play
with a large amount of uncertainty. Sometimes their escape path becomes
blocked before they can reach safety. Sometimes there is internal rot
that weakens the holding wood they were counting on to direct the fall.
Sometimes a gust of wind changes all of their plans. It is by no means
an exact science.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:33:21 GMT, Travis
in rec.gardens wrote:

FACE wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 06:45:33 GMT, Travis
in rec.gardens wrote:


SugarChile wrote:


There was a sad story in the local paper yesterday about a employee of a
tree-trimming firm who died on the job. He was cutting a tree; the tree
fell and hit a stump, and the bottom of the tree "kicked up" and struck him
in the head. There's an investigation underway, but it looks like it was
just a terrible accident, not negligence.

There might not be negligence but it wasn't "just a terrible accident"
either.


Really now?

Really.
You can make all the excuses for him that you want but as a
professional he didn't act very professionally.

Since you conveniently snipped everything I wrote I am sure you will point
to where I made an excuse for him.