Tree Tech Consulting    The Knothole  Hop To Forum Categories  Ethics in Arboriculture    From A300 new revision Spures and climbing

Closed Topic Closed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
From A300 new revision Spures and climbing
 Login/Join 
<John P Sanborn>
posted
14.4.1.7 Climbing spurs may be used when limbs are more than throw line distance apart, or when the bark is thick enough to prevent damage to the cambium, or there is no other practical means of climbing the tree.

I recieved the revision draft via treetown list.

coments?
 
Report This Post
<Tom Dunlap>
posted
Reply to post by John P Sanborn, on December 28, 2000 at 21:30:45:

John,

You will find that the section you are referring to is in the Utility section. The last time this came up for review I remember Tim Johnson, who is on the ANSI review committee, "defend" this. If you read the section carefully you will see that the "out" in the section is that the trees are in rural or remote situations. For some reason, the committee felt that the standard could be eased in that situtation.

Tom
 
Report This Post
<John P Sanborn>
posted
Reply to post by Tom Dunlap, on December 28, 2000 at 21:30:45:

I I should have known it would be you finding that.
 
Report This Post
<Carl Absher>
posted
Reply to post by John P Sanborn, on December 28, 2000 at 21:30:45:

Since this is the Ethics Forum, let's look at this a little more:

“14.4.1.7 Climbing spurs may be used when limbs are more than throw line distance apart, or when the bark is thick enough to prevent damage to the cambium, or there is no other practical means of climbing the tree.”

In the ANSI A300-1995 Revision Draft 2, the quoted section is under 14 Utility Pruning, 14.4 Utility Crown Reduction Pruning, and 14.14.1 Urban/Residential Environment. I would be interested in seeing the defense of that compromise of the standards.

It appears to me that both this section and 14.4.2.1 both need to be examined closely. Do we really want to ease our standard to accept common practices, even though they may not be proper? I am afraid that both of these sections could be abused by someone who, although technically in compliance with the standard as written, could be performing at a substandard level.

14.4.1.7 makes three exceptions when climbing spurs may be allowed. The only one of the three that may be measured is the bark thickness and I doubt that you will find many trees in the East with bark thick enough to meet this requirement. The other two are subjective and totally dependent on the knowledge, skill, and motivation of the person actually pruning the tree. The tree that has “no other practical means of climbing the tree” to one climber may easily worked by another. Today, there are arborists practicing at different levels. To which level should we set the standard, high or low? Do we need to encourage the lower performers to improve their practices or lower the standard to meet their practices?

”14.4.2.1 Mechanical pruning Cuts should be made close to the main stem, outside of the branch bark ridge and branch collar. Precautions should be taken to avoid stripping or tearing of bark or excessive wounding.”

Section 8 Pruning Cuts describes the mechanics of proper pruning cuts. The mechanical trimmers used in remote locations are effective and economical tools but the quality of work produced is poor. When they are used, the utility has to be prepared to trade speed and economics for excessive resprouting and the creation of danger trees. It can be a good trade but does the quality of work meet the standards that are based on tree biology? I do not think so.

ANSI A300 is the industry standard. Should it define the best quality tree work or the average quality tree work? In my opinion, we need to set our standards at the highest level and let anyone who chooses to do less justify his actions.

I am really would like to hear what everyone thinks about this.

Carl
 
Report This Post
<John Paul Sanborn>
posted
Reply to post by Carl Absher, on December 28, 2000 at 21:30:45:

I think that it would be better have the verbage at "spurs should not be used on a tree being pruned.." people can weazel the should if the first limb is 100ft.

Personaly I won't spike a tree I'm pruning. Befor I went freelance I walked away from some jobs that I feled were above the skill level of me and my crew, or exceeded certain risk criteria of my emloyer. This was a luxury some dont have.

Then again I know some people that have, spiked up a few trees they could not have worked without doing so.

I realy cant object to these operators, because the do it with great discretion. It is the people that do it as a mater of course that bother me.

The only way we can reduce the populations of these pests is to educate the buying public.
 
Report This Post
<Tom Watson>
posted
Reply to post by Carl Absher, on December 28, 2000 at 21:30:45:

I'm so glad this has come up. A large telecommunications company here in Atlanta has, for the past several years, sent spike climbers up trees to install digital TV receivers sometimes climbing several trees on a property to get the best signal position.

Our local arborist association and tree advocacy groups pushed the company to climb with ropes. But the company said that their climbers were maintaining the standards by only spike climbing trees that could not be safely climbed without spikes. Safety of their climbers, the company, was the top concern, and how can you argue with that. .


The standard can easily be interpreted to mean that someone not trained in rope climbing could spike the tree because they had no other practical way to climb it.

My other concern is the throw lines distance between limbs criteria. One problem is the particular range of ability difference in throwline tossing. Does the standard mean the actual length of the throwline, which you make as long or short as you want, or how far someone can toss.

The throwline bit also seems somewhat obselete. Im a poor throwline tosser. But Ive yet to work on a tree so tall that I cant hit a high, central rope setting with one of the new slingshot launchers. Nobody I know who has gotten the hang of these new slingshots still tosses by hand.

We are just now turning the corner toward raising public awareness of spike climbing barbarics, and to write the standard in the proposed draft would be a major setback. Despite public tree education programs and newspaper articles about spike climbing, youd be surprised how many people still believe it doesnt hurt trees.

Someone who recently allowed a company to prune their trees with leg spikes told me that they assumed it was the standard, as the six companies who bid the job all used them. They picked the company that agreed to only spike the less-visible side of the trunks.

Another concern is that the City of Atlanta will soon consider amending tree protection laws to outlaw non-ANSI pruning practices and spike climbing that violates standards. With the potential of these standards to be incorporated into municipal law, they better be specific and in the best interest of trees - without compromise.

Ed is right about writing standards that promote the best tree "care" possible. Especially now when the industry is making such great progress in increasing credibility and reforming the public perception of arborists. But weve earned these and we need to continue earning credibility and respect by adopting specific, stringent standards.

By the way, The City of Atlanta is earning new respect among tree-minded folks. Atlanta last year added four new city arborists (up from one) who are strictly enforcing tree laws. One of the new hires is a long-time recreational tree climber with a Phd in forestry. The city parks department is in the process of hiring three arborists, up from zero.

Keep Looking Up,
Tom
 
Report This Post
<Jerry>
posted
Reply to post by Tom Watson, on January 11, 2001 at 13:24:28:

do woodpeckers pecking or squirrels chewing or home owners nailing bird feeders signs and thermometers to trees or even cutting branches
hurt the tree more than spurs? they are all wounds to the tree aren't they?
any advice?
 
Report This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The critters are just doing what is instinctual, the homeowners just don't know better but we do! Just because other things are injuring trees doesn't mean we can! I only use spikes on removals, never on pruning climbs! There are ways to get there!

Ezekiel T. Willard
 
Posts: 1 | Location: Boise, Idaho U.S.A. | Registered: Thursday March 04, 2004Report This Post
<Ryan>
posted
My concern with the new code is the use of the word "or". All someone has to do is find a loophole in one of the situations listed, like the individual ability consdierations for "throwline distance", as previously mentioned. I think this kind of blows the lid off the spur ban.
 
Report This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  

Closed Topic Closed

Tree Tech Consulting    The Knothole  Hop To Forum Categories  Ethics in Arboriculture    From A300 new revision Spures and climbing

© 1997-2003 Tree Tech Consulting. All messages are the property of the original author.