From:
Gary Letteron
Fri 10:34 PM

Subject:
[TT] Helicopter Tree Lifts
To:
TREETOWN@LSV.UKY.EDU


Hey!

I just got the following from Richard, with the request that I foreward it
to TreeTown...

-=G=-
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


Hi Folks -

Sorry I've been such a lurker for the past year. On the website for
Pa's posh public Longwood Gardens (DuPont estates) they have recent
photos of airlifting trees. Gary, we should try this in downtown
Baltimore, don't you think? Click on the following - Richard ...

http://www.LongwoodGardens.com/Plants&Horticulture/Helicopter.htm

Reply to post by jps, on March 04, 2000 at 19:32:55:

Sounds somewhat shaky that " more roots and limbs were removed" in order to keep the plant weight within the lift capacity of the helicopter. Was it more important to move the plant than keep the plant alive?

Reply to post by James Causton, on March 04, 2000 at 19:32:55:

The word is actually spelled " helicopter"

Reply to post by jps, on March 04, 2000 at 19:32:55:

Great pictures, however, lets discuss something that has bothered me for a long time about the "Disney Method" of moving trees, and that is the drilling of a big hole through the lower trunk for a pin, then filling it with dowel after the lift. Disney treats trees like furniture, they make no excuse for that, the landscape is a "set" for the show. If they move a tree and it succeeds in its new location for 10 years while comparmentalization is taking place and decay is developing, thats fine as long as the tree remains in scale and does not develop structural problems. As the tree grows beyond scale or the "scene" changes at Disney, out goes the tree, and in comes a new landscape.

Now, in a long-term landscape or arboretum situation, what is the validity of drilling a 2 or 3 inch diameter hole through a beech tree trunk simply for transplanting purposes? I moved six 40 - 44 foot conifers at NYBG in 1992, average DBH about 16-18 inches, with a flatbed truck and a 50-ton all terrane crane. Quite frankly it was a piece of cake and all have survived and are doing well. We had 14' soil balls and used custom made lifting straps provided by a local nursery, 5/8 diameter chain at the top and bottom of the ball going through the straps, and 45' vertical lifting cables to a 20' spreader bar to which the crain attached. It would take a bigger crane perhaps to move the longwood trees, but we weighed in at 10 12,000 lbs each with the soil ball.......

So, what do people think about the steel pin through the trunk method?

Wayne

Reply to post by James Causton, on March 06, 2000 at 23:48:00:

that's what i get for doing a cut and paste

Reply to post by jps, on March 06, 2000 at 23:50:29:


Now, now, jps

You made an excellent contribution and the questions are valid. You gotta get a thicker skin like me. Speaking of Disney, I now go around humming, "When I see a cottonwod fly," thanks to your photos.

Reply to post by Wayne Cahilly, on March 04, 2000 at 19:32:55:

Wayne,

There is a valid concern about the problem of the disney pin system. It does
not always involve the main stem as branches are sometimes drilled instead. There
are alternatives but we must not loose sight of the fact that transplanting often
results in large wounds particularly to the roots.

The fact that trees are saved must gain some merit... If everyone felt that dedicated this
would be one great way to earn a living.

Mark

Reply to post by James Causton, on March 04, 2000 at 19:32:55:

Be assured that Longwood Gardens will not jeopardize the health of the trees. But to answer the question directly, yes, they considered it extremely important to move the trees. And Helicopter (however you spell it) was the only viable option.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on March 06, 2000 at 23:48:00:

Russ,

I agree with all y9ou have said except the word only.
There may have been alternatives but I can not think of
one that is as much fun and gets as much press.

Mark

Reply to post by Mark Hartley, on March 14, 2000 at 23:02:33:

Due to the location of the trees that were being replaced, there were not many alternatives, if any. Two key trees were severely damaged in the central part of the Gardens, and had to be removed. The administration apparently felt it was necessary to replace with suitably large trees, and the only way to get them to the location was through the air. I presume they ruled out launching them with dynamite or catapults (hard to get the proper orientation on landing).

Reply to post by Wulkowicz, on March 09, 2000 at 21:42:13:

That was in referance to "Helecpoter". I didn't _read_ it closely and just cut-n-pasted it into the feilds.

It was intended as self depricating humor, sorta toung in cheek. i keep forgetting that those things get lost with a keyboard.

But then anyone who has read my post would know that I never let a typo get by. I wouldnt fit in to this forum if I did!

Reply to post by Mark Hartley, on March 09, 2000 at 09:08:26:

And I have problems getting upper management to rent a crane!

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on March 15, 2000 at 05:43:34:

Russ,

It is so easy being a critic at a distance. Sorry! Still all the same I am
not convinced at a distance. The last tome a helicopter had to be used I found
another way and put some more money into my back pocket. Ther trees were only
relatively small and light. What if there were no helicopters?

Mark

Reply to post by Mark Hartley, on March 16, 2000 at 00:43:23:

If there were no helicopters, I suppose they would have had to settle for much smaller trees. Knowing the site, there just isn't access for large equipment, without tearing out half the garden.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on March 18, 2000 at 01:30:04:

Russ,

You can see the site and I can not. Still in the old days some of the
largest transplants were done before there were cranes. My 3rd largest
transplant was moved without a crane.

Mark

Reply to post by Mark Hartley, on March 18, 2000 at 18:46:18:

Now I remember youse guys... you worked on that pyramid job in Egypt. No cranes, no helicopters, but we made it work. Ahhh, the voices of experience.

Reply to post by Scott, on March 19, 2000 at 02:49:45:

Ok, we have settled the issue of access, it was obviously a tough spot to get into with equipment. However, we still haven't dealt with a 1.5" inch hole through a 20" stem, or in different terms, a 9.5444% removal of the cross-sectional area at the point of pin insertion. There is no mention of advance prep for the trees, managing last years drought, root pruning, or anything of the sort. If half of what we know to be true about trees is true we can expect compartmentalization to take place regardless of the treatment of the pin-hole after the pin is removed.

I have several slides from Disney World of trees that are totally hollow with an eliptical hole on each side of the trunk; I think I know how the initial wound was made. If it can be lifted there is a helocopter out there to lift it so reducing weight is an economic decision, not a horticultural one. I have seen commercial air-crane firm move a d-8 catapiller and Air National Guard lift and move a A-1 Abrams tank with helocopter. I still contend that drilling a hole through the trunk to move a tree flys in the face of what we know and teach to others. Money and the Board of Managers aside, is it good horticulture?

Reply to post by Wayne, on March 19, 2000 at 06:49:50:

Well, I think it goes back to your earlier post. What is the management goal? If the tree (albiet large) is treated a "furniture," or a "stage prop," or a "crop," then the goal is to get the tree and the placement (moving, whatever) to payback the investment over a safe usable investment (or play or set or crop rotation) life. That life may be may be equal too or shorter than the safe physical life imposed by the unorthodox treatments. So, is it "bad" horticulture?

I was in NYC last spring. One of the park conservancies or private sponsors does the planting where the ferries leave for the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. They plant bulbs in the Winter or Fall, let them bloom and then yank them and dump them to make room for the next flowering crop. The bulb cost is cheaper than the design and labor cost to carefull interplant with others crops. Is it "good" horticulture? Dunno, works for them.

Back to our big trees, if you do the drill hole, insert lifting pin trick with material that you want to last another 100 years maybe it is poor practice.

Reply to post by Scott, on March 20, 2000 at 12:32:51:

Are we doing any more damage to the tree than a bolt would to brace a weak crotch? Just a thought. I'v seen a lot of big trees ruined when a sling slipped and peeled bark off the trunk, whether wrapped around it or the root ball.

I do have a little interest in this since my cousin was (still is ? real close family) director of horticulture at Disney World. He said that the only job description there is creating an illusion of perfection. Most people will not recognize problems such as this as easily. Their newest big tree doesn't seem to rot too much, concrete trunk.

On the day I visited in 1988, they were moving a 12" live oak on a boulevard in Buena Vista Village, that had lost about half its leaves due to a sprinkler head failure. The tree was replaced late at night when traffic was light and by morning, sod was in place and no sign of activity. The old tree was moved to the nursery to recuperate and be used elsewhere.

Their techniques may not be perfect, but I think they have really expanded the limits of what we might consider if faced with a very unusual problem. Remember, us old farts just knew that you couldn't get any fancier than a yellow pac-man chasing goblins through a maze, but no one told the kids!

Keep thinking and dreaming.

Bob

Reply to post by Mark Hartley, on March 09, 2000 at 09:08:26:


If everyone felt that dedicated this would be one great way to earn a living.

Yup, till one fell on your head.

Fore--oops, I mean tree!

Reply to post by jps, on March 04, 2000 at 19:32:55:

Seems that this all lies in the perseption of what an Arborist is. On the right are the people who see themselves as managers of property and on the left the advocates for the silent trees.

I'm sorta right of center.

Reply to post by JPS, on March 04, 2000 at 19:32:55:


I prefers being off-center meself.

Reply to post by bob, on March 26, 2000 at 17:13:11:

or is that tippsy?

Reply to post by JPS, on March 04, 2000 at 19:32:55:

I am by no means a blind tree hugger, but I will admit to having a "Lorax" tee shirt......

Reply to post by JPS, on March 04, 2000 at 19:32:55:

The humorous responses are entirely appropriate. But there's a serious side as well. The various recent discussions on this and other forums have talked a lot about "ethics" and who is or is not ethical. That question has to be framed by whether the discussion is about the trees for their own sake or trees as an asset or resource or property to be managed.

I think - at least in our social / economic / legal system - some are each... there are private property trees and there are natural resources held in the public trust. The private ones may be regulated to greater or lesser degrees.

Meaningful dialogue and meaningful policy or standards of practice must recognize the difference.