Safely piecing down high branch on tree?

Man, I make so many typos when I write on the laptop.
I don't catch them all when I proof read.

Actually I thought you could levitate, Master.

Nope. I can jump pretty high, however!

Yeah, Butch, you're a contract climber. Romantic, isn't it?

stig said:

Where did I say " Giant"??

Li'l pissant is more like it. Compared to the real ones.

The biggest Sequoia here is 38,6 cubic meters. I know that because our team climbed and measured it as a practice run for going to the Giants.

They have bigger ones in Britain, but I don't think any of them exceed 100 cubic meters.

Redwood Sequoia sempervirens can't grow here. they freeze back.
Doesn't make them quit trying, tenacious bastards that they are. I have one in my yard that is 12 years old and still only 2½ feet tall.

My 7 year old Squoiadendron is 12 feet tall ang growing fast, it likes it here.

Click to expand...

Stig, thank you for the response. I need to get smarter about the various species of redwood tree out there. I also need to do the research about what the size of the California Redwoods is in total volume. Just so that I can have some idea of the difference in size between yours and the ones in California. Thanks for the information about the two species you are trying to grow at your own place. That will be quite helpful if I ever decide to try to grow one myself.

I forget the name of the species, but there is an old species that was rediscovered around ww2 time frame that they thought was extinct. I found out that there was a living example of the species within driving distance of me here in Virginia, USA. This species of Redwood was alive when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. Just amazing that it has survived so long.

Do you know the species name of the tree that needs to be removed with the crane? Thanks again so much, for all of your answers.

Tim

P.S. I think the old species of Redwood tree may be called the Dawn Redwood. The example I saw here in Virginia was kind of thin looking, but maybe 90 or 100 feet tall, just guessing. Other types of deciduous trees in that same area just towered over it, but it was still nice to see something so ancient with my own eyes.

Here you go:

You are talking about the Dawn Redwood Metasequoia Glyptostroboides I killed one of the biggest ones outside China a few years ago. The original owner was friends with one of the botanists on the expedition that found the trees in 48 and got two of the first seedlings produced from seeds they brought home.
One was planted way too close to the house and had to go, but the other one is still there. I couldn't believe the size of them, so I asked he owner of the house if they maybe were among the first planted in Denmark.
He had gotten the history of the trees from the original owner, when he bought the house.

As for the size of Sequoiadendron giganteum here is a good link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_giant_sequoias

My crane tree is a Sequoiadendron.

If you want to see some Sequoia climbing pictures: https://www.masterblasterhome.com/s...ck-to-the-BIG-ones&highlight=sequoias+richard

Hey, Stig! Thanks for the links. In the Wikipedia article, it looks like the Dawn Redwood was actually rediscovered by Chinese foresters prior to the outbreak of WWII. The mission to acquire samples had to wait until after the war was over. Here's a quote from the article:

"In 1941 a forester named Kan, while performing a survey in Sichuan and Hubei provinces, happened across an enormous tree — as it turned out, an individual of Metasequoia — and recognized it to be special. In 1943, two more discoveries further brought Metasequoia to light: Chan Wang (1911–2000), a Chinese forestry official, also happened across an individual (said to have been the very tree that Kan had seen) and collected samples from it.[2] These samples were determined to belong to a tree as yet unknown to science. However, in the same year, a second discovery was made that ended up being supremely relevant: Shigeru Miki (1901–1974) of Kyoto University, studying fossil samples of the family Cupressaceae, isolated a divergent leaf form that led him to describe a new genus, which he named Metasequoia, meaning "like a sequoia." Only in 1946 was the connection made between Miki's new genus and the living samples identified by Kan and Wang.[2] Professor Hu Xiansu (1894–196 is credited with making this important connection, and providing the specific epithet "glyptostroboides," after its resemblance to the Chinese swamp cypress (Glyptostrobus).[3] (For the record, Hu Xiansu lived from 1894 to 1968; I don't know why the little guy with the sunglasses shows up to obscure the information.)

Plus this:

"In 1948 the Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University funded an expedition to collect seeds and, soon after, distributed seeds and seedlings to various universities and arboreta worldwide for growth trials."

Thanks for the links, and the link to your photographs. Really nice. I have a question, as I looked at your photos, but so far have not yet read through that entire thread. Were those trees you were climbing Sequoia sempervirens, also called the coast redwood, or were they Sequoiadendron giganteum, also known as the Giant Sequoia?

It's pretty cool that the Giant Redwood seems to grow pretty well in Norway. Exciting stuff, even if you'll never live to see them get really huge. Do you think that it is at all possible for them to get anywhere near as big as they do in California, given enough time? Or do you think that there are aspects of the climate that just will not allow that to happen?

Thanks again for any comments you choose to chime in with.

Tim

I live in Denmark, dude.
Sadly, since I would prefer Norway.

Personally I think the giant Redwoods and Sequoias were a product of certain climatic factors ( And lack of chainsaws) that may no longer be there.
I don't think we'll see their like again.
Jerry Beranek thinks differently, and since he knows a gazillion times more about those trees and their growing conditions, he is probably right.

Care to chime in, Jer?

I'm wondering how the OP's job went. Any updates?

Been wondering that, too.....

I wanted to see pics of the tree.....

We have been cleverly maneuvered by numerous redirects...oops...derails. Diabolical!

yeah, seems to happen that way.... I was going to say that the OP should..... LOOK, SQUIRREL!!! Anyway, what was I saying?

HAHAA...we are SO easily distracted.

This is OP. I'm sorry I have been absent from here. I have busy with work including at this client's house. We decided not to cut that branch because of its size in proportion to the rest of the tree. The client is considering removing that tree entirely but is weighing their options. I think inevitably they will want it taken down. But, since it isn't pruning work and will be a removal that can happen any time and doesn't have to happen in the next month or so.

I will get you all some photos of the tree tomorrow. They will probably be crappy cell phone pictures but it will be the best I can do.

That'll have to be good enough, pardner...your one chance at redemption.

Thanks for the update.

Stig, I'm pretty sure all 3 species of redwood were growing in your neck of the woods before the big ice ages changed everything. Fossil records show two-thirds the northern hemisphere was covered with them. Some of the fossils date back 160 million years. Cretaceous period.

With all the plantings going on worldwide now the trees are gaining back some of their old territory. In the right environments, if left alone to naturalize, the trees may even recover in more places than before.

It's cool to think about.

I have a decent sized one to work on soon. Nothing substantial as Redwoods go...only touching 100' maybe. I like it all the same. I have some planted at home. Just getting going and now overhead a bit.

OP here. I have 4 pictures total but I could only upload 2 of them in this post. I will try and upload the other two in another post.

Here is probably the best picture out of the lot. When I originally mentioned this tree I was relaying some information from the client. She had mentioned concern about the branch when I was first there but that wasn't really her focus because there was a lot more to do in the front. She later mentioned over the phone what I thought about removing the branch on that tulip poplar over the house. I asked her to describe the situation and I tried to recall what I had seen. After having been there for a couple of days doing work in the front and then later dropping some small Chinese parasol trees in the back I have had plenty of time to get a good look at the tree. Someone mentioned that taking off that large of a branch would be detrimental to the tree and probably cause big issues and I agree. If that limb should be cut then the whole tree should probably come down. The good news is that I have a couple of options for rigging off of other trees nearby. I can't really use the trees on the right because the neighbor doesn't want any involvement.

So, if this was your tree to remove how would you do it?

Hopefully I can get more pictures in another post.



Here is a worse quality but closer shot of where the two branch leaders join at the trunk.

I can't upload the other two files right now. That is possibly because they are over 4mb, maybe? It says "Upload of file failed." I will try and resize them if I can figure that out and post them later.

stig said:

I live in Denmark, dude.
Sadly, since I would prefer Norway.

Click to expand...

Apologies, Stig. Man, that's embarrassing. You've only got your location listed listed below your avatar, so how the heck am I supposed to know?



Tim

Taking a branch that big off, isn't going to do the tree any good in the long run.
As for the practical part, it seems like there are plenty of pines to use as a TIP and for roping the branch away from the roof.

Of course, as we all know, pictures can decieve.

Well done on the photos, I see you were not overestimating the difficulties.
Personally if you can get into another tree then great, do that. If not spike up the branch and lower (off the branch itself) in small sections the sub branches then the branch proper. Till you're in a position to drop the sections on the ground.
It looks like a wooden shingle roof so your groundsman can stand on it and unhitch and chuck the pieces off.

stig said:

Personally I think the giant Redwoods and Sequoias were a product of certain climatic factors ( And lack of chainsaws) that may no longer be there.
I don't think we'll see their like again.
Jerry Beranek thinks differently, and since he knows a gazillion times more about those trees and their growing conditions, he is probably right.

Care to chime in, Jer?

Click to expand...

gf beranek said:

Stig, I'm pretty sure all 3 species of redwood were growing in your neck of the woods before the big ice ages changed everything. Fossil records show two-thirds the northern hemisphere was covered with them. Some of the fossils date back 160 million years. Cretaceous period.

With all the plantings going on worldwide now the trees are gaining back some of their old territory. In the right environments, if left alone to naturalize, the trees may even recover in more places than before.

It's cool to think about.

Click to expand...

Thank you both for your comments. It is cool to think about the possibility of these trees gaining ground all over the place. The fact that Sean has some growing that are already over his head is also really cool. People just have to have the foresight to plant them in places that will accommodate their eventual maximum size, or they'll end up just getting cut down as a nuisance, like Stig had to do. What a shame it was to lose one of the earliest specimens available since their rediscovery and dissemination, simply due to a lack of planning. Those specimens were so precious, you'd have thought they'd have been planted on public park land, in a location that would allow them to grow for centuries unmolested.

Thanks, Stig, thanks Gerry.

Tim

P.S. Sorry for the temporary derail, again. Please continue.

.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/76uIoL2qma4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I might have overlooked it, but is there any mention as to height of the tree. Is it over a single story house?