OT: Tree felling question

[Tim+]

Around my neck of the woods, the council, or whoever they contract to do the work, have a ?staged? technique of felling large hardwood trees (3 ft diameter & larger) on council owned land.

First they go in and remove all the branches just leaving the main trunk and then they leave it for a year or more depending on the size of the tree before bringing down the rest of it.

I?m guessing it?s to do with allowing the timber to dry a bit in situ but that?s just a guess. The trees tend to be beech and oak.

Anyone know for sure why they do it this way?

Tim

[Michael Chare]

A similar size tree on private land near me was felled soon after the branches were removed. I was aware of the thud when it hit the ground.

[Jeff Layman]

No idea, but it won't dry out that way, and unless they ringbark it low down as well, it will regenerate by putting out new branches. That's equivalent to pollarding, and has been a way of getting lots of new shoots every few years, for example for use in basket making.

[ss]

Just guessing but could it be that there are unsafe branches so initially they take the branches off and then when they have a few more trees at a later date then take them all down. Could also be a separate team for the actual felling that has different insurance premiums. Or just the councils being inefficient as usual.

[AJH]

Branches with ash dieback become very brittle so may be removed both for public (and subsequent feller's) safety. There have been a number of cases of branches being shaken loose when wedging trees over and injuring the bloke with the hammer such that wedging is now deprecated on diseased trees in favour of winching.

It could be a way of getting around felling licence rules but doubtful on council owned tree.

With a skilled climber there's not significantly more cost in stripping out the top and chipping it over felling and dealing with the top. Then the stick can be felled and lifted when transport with a grapple loader is available.

I cannot see any drying happening and the beech would die and timber become stained within a year or so.

My guess with non-timber, amenity, trees is it's logistics of labour and transport. Why not ask the local parks department?

[Tim+]

None of these tress ever out out new growth. I suspect only certain trees (and only up to a certain size) will do this.

Tim

[Jeff Layman]

Nonsense.

Firstly, the OP says the trees "tend to be beech and oak", which suggests there could be other types. Secondly, oaks can be, and are, pollarded:

Beech trees can also be pollarded, but are not as straightforward. The link above mentions beech, but for a range of opinions read this thread:

[Tim+]

You might say nonsense but I?m talking about what actually happened to the trees concerned. They did NOT put out new growth.

I don?t doubt that done correctly on the right size trees that many if not most trees could be pollarded but these particular trees did not display any regrowth.

Tim

[Jeff Layman]

If none of them did, then it suggests that other methods were also used to kill the trees, such as driving in copper nails. It would not have been the sawing alone which stopped them putting out new growth.

[Tim+]

No copper nails. These were *big* trees. I think above a certain size total de-branching = death.

Tim

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

Depends on whether the trees are infected. Most large healthy trees are protected these days. Brian

[T i m]

What council / area is this as I may have a man in the know?

Cheers, T i m

[Chris Green]

Dependent on species mostly.

[Tim+]

South Ayrshire council.

Tim

[Tim+]

Maybe also the time of year when they?re debranched? Pollarding is normally done in the winter/early spring I believe. These trees were topped in the summer.

Tim

[Andrew]

Pruned oak trees look awful. The classic oak-tree shape is permanently lost if the lower limbs are chopped back.

The spread of an unconstrained oak tree also indicates the spread of the roots. I have a suspicion that cutting back the lower limbs is to allow a (future) planning application to allow a building closer than would normally be allowed.

[Tim+]

Interesting theory bu the trees in question haven?t been ?pruned?. They?ve had every branch lopped off just leaving the straight(ish) trunk behind.

Tim

[charles]

It might be so that the main trunk falls as intended. Various branches stickingb out would unbalance it.

[Tim+]

Doesn?t explain the wait of one or more years before felling.

Tim

[Tim Lamb]

I think AJH is closer to this than most of us.

But, *acts of God* were abolished some years back such that landowners/tree owners became liable for incidents caused by diseased or suspected hazardous trees.

Naturally the insurers were quick to protect themselves: usually by expecting a bi-annual inspection and report by a qualified surveyor. All this costs money and a consequence may be an over cautious de-limbing and eventual removal when convenient.

>