US Pruning Standard draft revision

[treelooker]

2008. topping: Reduction of tree size using internodal cuts without regard to tree health or structural integrity. Topping is not an acceptable pruning practice.

2015 (proposed). topping: Excessive reduction of tree size by cutting live branches and leaders to stubs, without regard to long-term tree health or structural integrity. Topping is not an acceptable practice.
9.56 stub: Portion of a branch or stem remaining after an internodal cut or branch breakage.

So there's the committee's DRAFT revision of the definition of topping. If anyone knows what "Excessive" means, please tell the rest of us. See http://tcia.org/files/A300Part1-Pruning-D1V1-20151109.pdf for more legalese, punctuated with unusable terms like "excessive" and "appropriate".
An interesting exercise is to highlight the SHALL 'requirements'.

For actual guidance, wait 2 years until the bmp comes out, or look to other sources.

 

[Pelorus]

Not to put too much of a fine line on it, but isn't the target audience of the BMP's aimed at professionals?
Is "excessive" or "appropriate" really too ambiguous? Are we children here?
Turning a tree into a lollipop seems a bit extreme. I'd consider that excessive.

 

[Pelorus]

Wife is currently in Dehradun, India and sent me some cool tree pics.
I'm unsure what BMP they use over there....
She did manage to visit the Forest Research Institute in Dehradun, which is an impressive place.

 

[DMc]

....Is "excessive" or "appropriate" really too ambiguous?....

Yes. In a document meant for guidance it gives none. If the speed limits were set as " not excessive " how do you think that would work?

But I hate rules and regulations. Never more so than when dealing with trees. When was the last time that you saw two trees that were identical?

 

[Pelorus]

Whaddya mean "it gives none"?
In the context of the entire sentence "....cutting live branches and leaders to stubs..." it gives plenty of guidance.
Furthermore, I think it represents an acceptable standard of care to follow.
Speed limits are not something to be blindly followed. Which is perhaps why there is occaisionally signage reminding drivers to reduce speed in icy or adverse conditions.
Arguing over semantics seems silly, imo. Exercising "common sense" is "appropriate"

 

[DMc]

Define common sense and then use that definition as a repeatable guide across a diverse work force. It is much easier to cite examples of common sense than it is to find it.
Speed limits are absolute only as an upper limit, not as a required driving speed.

 

[Pelorus]

I think employing common sense entails taking "reasonable" actions (constituting a duty of care based on a standard of care. The standards in this case being pruning standards / BMP's).
Carrying the definition game to extremes can result in this kinda weasel stuff:

"....depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

 

[treelooker]

Problem #1 is confusing Standards and bmp's.

Nice job in India of pruning aerial roots out of the way, if they were in the way...

 

[Pelorus]

Unsure what the problem is, re. BMP's.
Aren't the BMP's based on the Standards?
A300 Standards are on sale for $10/ea. to TCIA members ($15 non-members) till Dec. 31 from TCIA.

 

[treelooker]

"Unsure what the problem is, re. BMP's. Aren't the BMP's based on the Standards?"
BMPs are an ISA product, the A300 Standard is US-national and gets referred to in contracts and in court. They are both dominated by the same company, but mixing them up indicates a lack of comprehension.

"A300 Standards are on sale for $10/ea. to TCIA members ($15 non-members) till Dec. 31 from TCIA."
Good news! Parts 2, 5, 6, and especially 8 might be worth the investment, as they contain more actual guidance than the others. But they are all written in legalese, and aimed more at restricting liability than guiding practice.