If it can fall on you and kill you, then it's a tree. If you work on such trees, are you an arborist?
I've dismantled Pines that were 165ft+, done crown reductions on elms, poplars, birch, ash and others. Thinned and dead-wooded alot of stuff. Worked on big trees, small trees, suggested the planting of trees, planted them, removed trees, chipped trees, treated trees, etc.
After all that, I still refuse to call myself an arborist. Who among you would? I am not certified, and so I am not an arborist. I think certification is required.
So far, noone has voted that they would top trees, on the poll. Except that several of you are leaning in that direction, you just aren't truthfull about it.
Furthermore.... check out the Wikipedia page on "pruning". Mvaden's link is at the bottom, he supports the content of that page, and if you'll notice, there is a very supportive clause for topping:
Quote:
|
Topping: Topping is a very severe form of pruning which involves removing all branches and growths down to a few large branches or to the trunk of the tree. When performed correctly it is used on very young trees, and can be used to begin training younger trees for pollarding or for trellising to form an espalier.
|
This states that topping is severe but ACCEPTED as a form of PRUNING. Mvaden is an additive part of this page, with a link at the bottom supporting the page's contents. Topping is downplayed as correctly being used on "very young trees", though still referred to as "topping" and still being said that it can be done correctly.
Therefore, there is no argument that Mvaden supports the TOPPING of trees.