My new neighbours have employed some (foreign) builders to do major work in
their house and garden. There were a number of trees in the garden quite
near the house which they were instructed to remove completely....
Two conifers that had had their tops cut off many year ago.
A large mature previously pollarded walnut tree that always did lean over
because of the conifers shading it.
A decent sized golden yew that had been pollarded years ago.

Yesterday we were sitting having coffee with a friend who is a trained
gardener/arboriculturist and he suddenly looked out of our window and said
"why is that fir tree moving backwards and forwards so much?". We all rushed
upstairs to look. The builders had dug around the base, exposed the roots,
had chopped most through, and were busy using ropes to try to pull the tree
over by waggling it back and forth. Few branches had been removed
beforehand. The tree eventually dropped exactly where it should have and
then they started removing branches. Whilst we were out they managed to do
the same to the walnut even though it was leaning over a fence, without
damaging the fence. Today they have removed the remaining fir tree the same
way and will soon start on the yew. Mind you they also appear to be
attacking a cedar that is down the end of the garden and that the new owner
told me he wanted to keep.

A totally different way to remove trees including most of the roots.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:44:17 -0000, "Bob Hobden" wrote:

My new neighbours have employed some (foreign) builders to do major work
in
their house and garden. There were a number of trees in the garden quite
near the house which they were instructed to remove completely....
Two conifers that had had their tops cut off many year ago.
A large mature previously pollarded walnut tree that always did lean over
because of the conifers shading it.
A decent sized golden yew that had been pollarded years ago.

Yesterday we were sitting having coffee with a friend who is a trained
gardener/arboriculturist and he suddenly looked out of our window and said
"why is that fir tree moving backwards and forwards so much?". We all
rushed
upstairs to look. The builders had dug around the base, exposed the roots,
had chopped most through, and were busy using ropes to try to pull the
tree
over by waggling it back and forth. Few branches had been removed
beforehand. The tree eventually dropped exactly where it should have and
then they started removing branches. Whilst we were out they managed to do
the same to the walnut even though it was leaning over a fence, without
damaging the fence. Today they have removed the remaining fir tree the
same
way and will soon start on the yew. Mind you they also appear to be
attacking a cedar that is down the end of the garden and that the new
owner
told me he wanted to keep.

A totally different way to remove trees including most of the roots.

Don't you need local authority permission to remove trees, which are
greater
than a certain trunk diameter in England?
--

I think it's only if they have a tree preservation order (T.P.O.) on them.
mark

The message
from "Bob Hobden" contains these words:

A totally different way to remove trees including most of the roots.

Emerson Park Tree Felling Company (in which I was a partner) has been
doing that since its inception in the 1950s

--
Rusty
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk

"Rusty_Hinge" wrote after
"Bob Hobden" wrote:

A totally different way to remove trees including most of the roots.

Emerson Park Tree Felling Company (in which I was a partner) has been
doing that since its inception in the 1950s


Must admit neither our friend or I have ever seen it done that way, usually
British fellers would climb up with ropes and use chain saws to remove all
or most of the branches and then fell big limbs and the trunk in stages
finally getting a stump grinder in to remove the root.
The way they did it with just an axe and spade looked rather strange to our
eyes, toppling the whole tree in one go, but they have done it without
mishap.
Now they just have to cut it all up and remove it.
Does look bare now.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:27:20 GMT, Rusty_Hinge
wrote:

The message
from "Bob Hobden" contains these words:

A totally different way to remove trees including most of the roots.

Emerson Park Tree Felling Company (in which I was a partner) has been
doing that since its inception in the 1950s

It's the way the wind has been doing it since trees first grew

It felled my fir tree last year.

Steve

--
Neural Planner Software Ltd http://www.NPSL1.com

On 18/3/09 18:01, in article ,
"Stephen Wolstenholme" wrote:

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:27:20 GMT, Rusty_Hinge
wrote:

The message
from "Bob Hobden" contains these words:

A totally different way to remove trees including most of the roots.

Emerson Park Tree Felling Company (in which I was a partner) has been
doing that since its inception in the 1950s

It's the way the wind has been doing it since trees first grew

It felled my fir tree last year.

Steve

It knocked a 100year old macrocarpa down one path in our garden from the
churchyard next door last year, too. Were we lucky!! We were rather happy
that the parish council paid for 3 other dangerous trees to be felled before
half our garden and a few parishioners were kicked into touch! And yes,
they were felled by the climb up, take off limbs and reduce height method.
Anything else would have wrecked a large part of our garden.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
Exotic plants, shrubs & perennials online

The message
from Sacha contains these words:
On 18/3/09 18:01, in article ,
"Stephen Wolstenholme" wrote:
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:27:20 GMT, Rusty_Hinge
wrote:
The message
from "Bob Hobden" contains these words:

A totally different way to remove trees including most of the roots.

Emerson Park Tree Felling Company (in which I was a partner) has been
doing that since its inception in the 1950s

It's the way the wind has been doing it since trees first grew

It felled my fir tree last year.

It knocked a 100year old macrocarpa down one path in our garden from the
churchyard next door last year, too.

Similar happening here with the same sort of tree. The useful bits are
now stacked in my back garden. You can see some of them where they were
first unloaded - http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/smoke/smoke009.jpg

Were we lucky!! We were rather happy
that the parish council paid for 3 other dangerous trees to be felled before
half our garden and a few parishioners were kicked into touch! And yes,
they were felled by the climb up, take off limbs and reduce height method.
Anything else would have wrecked a large part of our garden.

We used to do that too: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/temp/elm.jpg
- this one was done in a back-garden around 1957

The largest trees we've taken down (in sections) were two poplars, which
were six feet in diameter at the base, and over 200 feet high. They were
landmarks - and could be seen from twenty miles away on a clear day.

--
Rusty
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk

In article ,
Rusty_Hinge wrote:

The largest trees we've taken down (in sections) were two poplars, which
were six feet in diameter at the base, and over 200 feet high. They were
landmarks - and could be seen from twenty miles away on a clear day.

Hmm. That's well over 250 feet. Methinks 20 miles is a trifle of
an exaggeration ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from contains these words:
In article ,
Rusty_Hinge wrote:

The largest trees we've taken down (in sections) were two poplars, which
were six feet in diameter at the base, and over 200 feet high. They were
landmarks - and could be seen from twenty miles away on a clear day.

Hmm. That's well over 250 feet.

What's well over 250 ft?

One was 218 feet and the oter was 209 IIRC

Methinks 20 miles is a trifle of
an exaggeration ....

Nope. They were on high ground beside the Thames Basin in North London,
and they poked up like - well, I've heard them referred to as -
'rabbit's ears' and 'two fingers'.

By-the-bye, while we were working on them we were being observed by a
buzzard, for a while.

--
Rusty
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk

In article ,
Rusty_Hinge wrote:

Methinks 20 miles is a trifle of
an exaggeration ....

Nope. They were on high ground beside the Thames Basin in North London,
and they poked up like - well, I've heard them referred to as -
'rabbit's ears' and 'two fingers'.

Ah, well, then I have seen a 3' tree at the same distance ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 18/3/09 19:17, in article
, "Rusty_Hinge"
wrote:
snip

The largest trees we've taken down (in sections) were two poplars, which
were six feet in diameter at the base, and over 200 feet high. They were
landmarks - and could be seen from twenty miles away on a clear day.

I must measure the stump of these felled macrocarpas. They're enormous!
AIUI they're notoriously short-lived and unstable trees that shoot up like
weeds but don't have good anchors. Is that right?
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon
Exotic plants, shrubs & perennials online

On Mar 18, 8:33�pm, Rusty_Hinge
wrote:
The message
from contains these words:

In article ,
Rusty_Hinge � wrote:

The largest trees we've taken down (in sections) were two poplars, which
were six feet in diameter at the base, and over 200 feet high. They were
landmarks - and could be seen from twenty miles away on a clear day.
Hmm. �That's well over 250 feet.

What's well over 250 ft?

One was 218 feet and the oter was 209 IIRC

�Methinks 20 miles is a trifle of
an exaggeration ....

Nope. They were on high ground beside the Thames Basin in North London,
and they poked up like - well, I've heard them referred to as -
'rabbit's ears' and 'two fingers'.

By-the-bye, while we were working on them we were being observed by a
buzzard, for a while.

--
Rusty
Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk

How old would that have been Rusty ? (Just interested)

Gary

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...
My new neighbours have employed some (foreign) builders to do major work
in their house and garden. There were a number of trees in the garden
quite near the house which they were instructed to remove completely....
Two conifers that had had their tops cut off many year ago.
A large mature previously pollarded walnut tree that always did lean over
because of the conifers shading it.
A decent sized golden yew that had been pollarded years ago.

Yesterday we were sitting having coffee with a friend who is a trained
gardener/arboriculturist and he suddenly looked out of our window and said
"why is that fir tree moving backwards and forwards so much?". We all
rushed upstairs to look. The builders had dug around the base, exposed the
roots, had chopped most through, and were busy using ropes to try to pull
the tree over by waggling it back and forth. Few branches had been removed
beforehand. The tree eventually dropped exactly where it should have and
then they started removing branches. Whilst we were out they managed to do
the same to the walnut even though it was leaning over a fence, without
damaging the fence. Today they have removed the remaining fir tree the
same way and will soon start on the yew. Mind you they also appear to be
attacking a cedar that is down the end of the garden and that the new
owner told me he wanted to keep.

A totally different way to remove trees including most of the roots.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden




Working on the tree gang 1980 we used this method for certain size trees was
a better method than being left to grind the stump.

On Mar 18, 11:44*am, "Bob Hobden" wrote:
My new neighbours have employed some (foreign) builders to do major work in
their house and garden. There were a number of trees in the garden quite
near the house which they were instructed to remove completely....
Two conifers that had had their tops cut off many year ago.
A large mature previously pollarded walnut tree that always did lean over
because of the conifers shading it.
A decent sized golden yew that had been pollarded years ago.

Yesterday we were sitting having coffee with a friend who is a trained
gardener/arboriculturist and he suddenly looked out of our window and said
"why is that fir tree moving backwards and forwards so much?". We all rushed
upstairs to look. The builders had dug around the base, exposed the roots,
had chopped most through, and were busy using ropes to try to pull the tree
over by waggling it back and forth. Few branches had been removed
beforehand. The tree eventually dropped exactly where it should have and
then they started removing branches. Whilst we were out they managed to do
the same to the walnut even though it was leaning over a fence, without
damaging the fence. Today they have removed the remaining fir tree the same
way and will soon start on the yew. Mind you they also appear to be
attacking a cedar that is down the end of the garden and that the new owner
told me he wanted to keep.

A totally different way to remove trees including most of the roots.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

Now you make me feel guilty; in my short gardening career I have
removed 3 trees, all small but removed with huge difficulty by exactly
the method you describe. It takes ages and is much harder than you
expect; the final parts involve all manner of woodworking and pruning
tools being used to try to chop through roots accompanied by frantic
rocking to try to lever the trunk out and snap the final roots.
What is the proper way to do it? I guess, the short cut is to cut the
trunk through near ground level and maybe pay someone to grind the
stump out?

Des

"Des Gardner" wrote in message ...
On Mar 18, 11:44 am, "Bob Hobden" wrote:
My new neighbours have employed some (foreign) builders to do major work in
their house and garden. There were a number of trees in the garden quite
near the house which they were instructed to remove completely....
Two conifers that had had their tops cut off many year ago.
A large mature previously pollarded walnut tree that always did lean over
because of the conifers shading it.
A decent sized golden yew that had been pollarded years ago.

Yesterday we were sitting having coffee with a friend who is a trained
gardener/arboriculturist and he suddenly looked out of our window and said
"why is that fir tree moving backwards and forwards so much?". We all rushed
upstairs to look. The builders had dug around the base, exposed the roots,
had chopped most through, and were busy using ropes to try to pull the tree
over by waggling it back and forth. Few branches had been removed
beforehand. The tree eventually dropped exactly where it should have and
then they started removing branches. Whilst we were out they managed to do
the same to the walnut even though it was leaning over a fence, without
damaging the fence. Today they have removed the remaining fir tree the same
way and will soon start on the yew. Mind you they also appear to be
attacking a cedar that is down the end of the garden and that the new owner
told me he wanted to keep.

A totally different way to remove trees including most of the roots.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden

Now you make me feel guilty; in my short gardening career I have
removed 3 trees, all small but removed with huge difficulty by exactly
the method you describe. It takes ages and is much harder than you
expect; the final parts involve all manner of woodworking and pruning
tools being used to try to chop through roots accompanied by frantic
rocking to try to lever the trunk out and snap the final roots.
What is the proper way to do it? I guess, the short cut is to cut the
trunk through near ground level and maybe pay someone to grind the
stump out?




I've dug out trees up to about 9" diameter trunks.
When I took down a row of eight 30ft leylandii, I dug out 4 wheel barrow loads or so, of soil, every evening for several days.
Then the trick is to tie a rope as high as possible on the trunk , that way you get the most leverage. Easier said than done with leylandii as you have to cut some branches to get access to the trunk. Hard work but better than being left with stumps.

For larger trees I've had a man with a JCB assist. Another guy with a dumper and a chain saw turned up and I was just left with thefluffy bits to burn.


mark