|
Felling trees, the alternative way!
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 |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
"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 |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
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 |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
"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 |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
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 |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
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 |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
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. |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
|
Felling trees, the alternative way!
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. |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
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 |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
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 |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
"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. |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
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 |
Felling trees, the alternative way!
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter