"FACE" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:44:26 GMT, "Pam - gardengal"

in rec.gardens wrote:


"FACE" wrote in message
.. .


I have to say that "ultimately negatively affect its long term health."
is
pretty silly when the alternative is cutting it down completely.

A sick or hazardous tree, which is what happens when they are topped, is
worse than no tree at all.


I can understand that aspect. Of note, the power company contracts a
company to come through and slash as they feel necessary those trees that
are up to the street lines. There are some funny looking trees that have
been topped by them (big tree company, named Asplundh) and they definitely
don't follow any "1/3" guidelines. Two of the ones I am talking about are
in lines and i want to be the one to determine "as necessary".

FACE

Asplundh, hmmmmm?? Boy, that company, which calls itself Asplundh Tree
"Expert" Company, sure gets around. I think they have the powerline
clearance contract with every utility company in north America. PlantAmnesty
is trying very hard to get their contract revoked in my area, but they have
a lot of clout and the battle has been waging for years. They also offer
residential service including tree "pruning", hazard assessment, fertilizing
and insect and disease control, but I'd avoid them like the plague - anyone
that goes around loping off and butchering trees they way they do would
never get my business. Nor do I think they have any idea of what basic tree
care is. Much better you should take your trees in hand and prune them, even
to remove more than 1/3, than to let them get hold of them.