Opinions, cuts for wildlife/ natural look

I'm interested to know what your opinions are, this debatable technique has yet to filter down to Wales lol and seems limited to LA and Parks departments.

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/r...8ED648F5D9/0/OS_HH_WhatsNewinNovember2008.pdf

http://www.arborecology.co.uk/resources/coronetcuts_naturalfracture.PDF


Its an interesting one, trying to replicate nature, I'm not sure tbh and certainly not on live trees.

 

Not possible to view those pictures unless you register with the site, so I don't know what you are talking about

 

Oops, Ive changed the link

 

My thinking also.

On healthy trees i consider it to be no better than the worst examples of 'tree surgery' we've all seen eg torn cuts etc.

On Dead wood perhaps although in the example of councils is it a justifiable use of rate payers resources?

 

To my mind, that is not woodland management, it is woodland vandalism. Using these techniques doesn`t just encourage beneficial bacteria, but also the likes of canker. The " stump " of a properly cut branch will soon heal over, leaving a natural looking burr.

 

Seems strange to me that after years of trying to keep fungi etc. out of cut wounds they are now actively encouraging it.

I think its just a balmy fad thought up by some bloke with a long beard and sandals, who smokes a pipe.:hehe:

They keep chopping trees off around here, but I think thats just a money saving health and safety thing.

To actually have ripped trees out of the ground in order to "perfect" this crazy idea is total nonsence.

 

To actually have ripped trees out of the ground in order to "perfect" this crazy idea is total nonsence.[/quote]

Completely agree, Pete, it defeats the whole object of the exercise, ie. to promote the " natural " look. Of the tree, that is.

 

Thats dreadful....

 

Agree David and pete,

For those who didnt see it:

"Other experiments that were carried out at Windsor involved winching off partially cut branches to produce
rip or tear-cuts. This was in some measure successful, it proved impossible to predict the appropriate winch
tension necessary to effect breakage and many trees failed at their roots before the attached branch broke off.
As a result such practice has for the most part been stopped as it is deemed to have a harmful effect on the
root system."

In other words they inadvertently uproted healthy trees.

 

As a self confessed tree hugger I say they should be ashamed of themselves -I`d go further, and say they should be shot but that may sound a touch extreme.

 

Claire, perhaps they should be pulled limb from limb?:yho::lollol:

 

No, No i think that should just a bout do it

 

Just so as you all know, I am in no way inciting a crime-just in case those anti terrorist police are watching.

 

Take a breath and relax, people...

Firstly, fracture pruning & coronet cuts are carried out selectively on mature veteran trees that have led a bountiful and fruitful life. These trees are now in their old age and are dying, albeit very slowly (A mature oak can take 300 years to die - a few coronet cuts here and there is not going to make much of a difference to it). The branches chosen to perform these cuts on are not significant to the tree, and the tree won't stress out over the damage to them. The tree will deal with this type of wounding as it would any other - by the shedding of limbs. Often, fracture pruning is carried out on trees that were due to be felled anyway, so it's no great loss.

Secondly, it's all about the location of the tree. Amenity trees would not have this done to them. Trees in a country estate, managed woodland or private woodland would be considered and they're often not in the public domain.

Fracture pruning and coronet cuts are a great way to increase biodiversity and wildlife population in an area. Yes, it may take some getting used to, and there are plenty of professionals out there who see it as bad practice, but it also does a lot of good.