# Big tree down, now what?



## 95025 (Nov 14, 2010)

Actually, I'm a big fan of Maples. But they, like every other tree, have a life cycle.

I certainly cannot tell you what you should do, but in the last 3 years I've bought, and planted 5 Autumn Blaze Maples in my yard. I bought big ones - about 20' tall, and about $150 each. They're healthy, and look great. They're already starting to provide a bit of shade, and are just about to turn into their bright red/orange/yellow fall colors.

You might also want to consider some flowering crab apple, or pear, trees. They stay pretty small, and provide some really pretty blossoms in the spring.


----------



## AllanJ (Nov 24, 2007)

At least think twice before planting a crab apple. THe fruit is too small and sour to enjoy yourself and the little apples fall in both fall and spring that are hard to rake up and then rot and then seedlings sprout that need weeding all next summer long.

Then also the birds eating the apples in the winter leaving droppings all of the place.

And crab apple is a magnet for tent caterpillars; you have to snip off the nests before the caterpillars get big and destroy the tree.


----------



## oh'mike (Sep 18, 2009)

Second vote for maple----strong trees and great shade----


----------



## handy man88 (Jan 23, 2007)

Maples are strong trees?

Maples are fast growers, which means their wood is not strong. Also, they have shallow root systems, so that means no grass and bumpy yard. Maples are susceptible to wind damage, especially since their large canopies catch wind like parachutes.


----------



## 95025 (Nov 14, 2010)

handy man88 said:


> Maples are strong trees?
> 
> Maples are fast growers, which means their wood is not strong. Also, they have shallow root systems, so that means no grass and bumpy yard. Maples are susceptible to wind damage, especially since their large canopies catch wind like parachutes.


This is true of Maples at the end of their life cycle, but not until they're 40-50 years old.


----------



## handy man88 (Jan 23, 2007)

DrHicks said:


> This is true of Maples at the end of their life cycle, but not until they're 40-50 years old.


I want to add that maple seeds suck.


----------



## 95025 (Nov 14, 2010)

handy man88 said:


> I want to add that maple seeds suck.


This is true.


----------



## Jim F (Mar 4, 2010)

I tried to count the rings of this tree at the stump. This is hard to do with the saw marks but I think it safe to say there are atleast 100 rings there. There is also a dark core. I'm not sure if any of the pics show it. Not sure if this is normal. 

I've spoke to a couple of people about this. There are some suggestions of a small leaf breed of tree which would be easier to clean up in the fall. I guess I just don't want another tree or treesthat will tower 40-50 feet above the house but I do want something out there. I suppose I could plant new maples out there. I won't be around to worry about those reaching the end of their life cycle.:laughing:


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

Jim F said:


> I tried to count the rings of this tree at the stump. This is hard to do with the saw marks but I think it safe to say there are atleast 100 rings there. There is also a dark core. I'm not sure if any of the pics show it. Not sure if this is normal.
> 
> I've spoke to a couple of people about this. There are some suggestions of a small leaf breed of tree which would be easier to clean up in the fall. I guess I just don't want another tree or treesthat will tower 40-50 feet above the house but I do want something out there. I suppose I could plant new maples out there. I won't be around to worry about those reaching the end of their life cycle.:laughing:


BTW, that tree certainly looked perfectly healthy, whose idea was it to cut it down? I think you're wife had every reason to cry.Did you have a certified aborist look at i tfirst?

By the time ANY tree gets 50 feet above the house, we will be LONG gone from this earth. Don't worry about it and plant whatever you like.Just NOT a Lombardy poplar:whistling2:


----------



## Jim F (Mar 4, 2010)

chrisn said:


> BTW, that tree certainly looked perfectly healthy, whose idea was it to cut it down? I think you're wife had every reason to cry.Did you have a certified aborist look at i tfirst?
> 
> By the time ANY tree gets 50 feet above the house, we will be LONG gone from this earth. Don't worry about it and plant whatever you like.Just NOT a Lombardy poplar:whistling2:


As I said in the first post it threatened the house. That tall leaning limb by itself could have done significant damage. This neigborhood is full of old maples and, now and again, one falls. The tree that fell on my neighbor's house down the street caused damage similar to the one in this picture. 

http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/05/12storm98.jpg

Luckily no one was injured or killed but no one sleeps on the second floor of their house. I have three kids who sleep upstaris in my house.

They don't have to be unhealthy to fall. They just need a lot of wind and or rain like we have had this summer. We grappled with this decision for years and it was not made lightly. I am as much a fan of trees as anyone you know which is why I am looking for a suitable replacement for this one and then some.


----------



## Missouri Bound (Apr 9, 2011)

Maple trees are unique in their fall foilage. I would have pruned it (professionally) to eliminate any threat to the home....which I didn't see. If that first picture is what it looked like before any attempt to remove it, then it was butchered....what a waste.


----------



## 95025 (Nov 14, 2010)

Jim F said:


> As I said in the first post it threatened the house. That tall leaning limb by itself could have done significant damage. This neigborhood is full of old maples and, now and again, one falls. The tree that fell on my neighbor's house down the street caused damage similar to the one in this picture.
> 
> http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/05/12storm98.jpg
> 
> ...


In all fairness, the majority of damage done by Maple Trees is done by trees that have rotted out the middle of the trunk. Maples are very deceptive that way. The trunk will be 5' in diameter, and the tree will be the picture of health. But a storm will come along and blow it over, and you'll find out that 3'-4' of the trunk was completely rotted out and hollow.


----------



## Jim F (Mar 4, 2010)

Have one looming over your house where your wife and kids sleep, see one down the street, perfectly healthy, fall onto a house and do what you will. Yes if it comes down to a choice of butchering a tree that has the potential to butcher my kids, sorry, the tree loses. What a stupid statement! And BTW every expert in the area I have spoken to about this tree over years said the same thing. It should come down. Also professionally pruning a tree costs 3-4 times as much as taking one down.

How about getting back to the original subject of a suitable replacement. I really wasn't lookind to t=get inot a war of words with tree huggers of which I am one. 

Lastly, my wife occasionally reads these posts. How about showing a little sensitivity.


----------



## 95025 (Nov 14, 2010)

Jim F said:


> Have one looming over your house where your wife and kids sleep, see one down the street, perfectly healthy, fall onto a house and do what you will. Yes if it comes down to a choice of butchering a tree that has the potential to butcher my kids, sorry, the tree loses. What a stupid statement! And BTW every expert in the area I have spoken to about this tree over years said the same thing. It should come down. Also professionally pruning a tree costs 3-4 times as much as taking one down.
> 
> *How about getting back to the original subject of a suitable replacement. I really wasn't lookind to t=get inot a war of words with tree huggers of which I am one. *
> 
> Lastly, my wife occasionally reads these posts. How about showing a little sensitivity.


I already told you to go get a couple Autumn Blaze Maples - big ones - and plant them. What are you waiting for? Go! :laughing:

By the way, do you know what kind of Maple that was? That was one danged big tree - especially for no bigger than the main trunk was.


----------



## Jim F (Mar 4, 2010)

DrHicks said:


> I already told you to go get a couple Autumn Blaze Maples - big ones - and plant them. What are you waiting for? Go! :laughing:
> 
> By the way, do you know what kind of Maple that was? That was one danged big tree - especially for no bigger than the main trunk was.


I am looking into those and Red Maples. Thar one was a Sugar whis is quite common in this neighborhood. The neighborhood trees are all in excess of 100 years and do fall and even if they don't fall they have large limbs break off in high winds. This particular tree was historically part of a canopy and had a tree on either side of it. As a result, this tree had a narrow trunk for it's height because it grew up dependant on the adjacent trees for support. It also did not have the round shape of a typical maple but was wider in the East to West orentation. 

Unlike our neighbors that previously owned the bungalow next door, we did not just hack this tree dwon to prevent leaves from gathering in the gutter. Here are a few pictures I found from recent years/seasons. The view from the back of the house sort of demonstrates the narrow profile I was talking about.


----------



## 95025 (Nov 14, 2010)

^ Yeah, now that you mention it, being part of a line of trees would lend itself to making the tree taller than if it was standing alone.

I love trees. I planted several hundred of them when we lived on our acreage in Minnesota, and have planted about a dozen here where we now live. But there are circumstances that dictate their removal. We currently have a massive walnut tree that stands about 25' from our house, and has enormous branches hanging over the roof. It needs to be taken down, even though I hate to see it happen.


A lot of people on this forum love to diss Home Depot, but we bought all 5 of our Red & Autumn Blaze Maples there, and they're all doing great. They were the $99 trees, that stand about 15' tall, and had about a 4' root ball. This picture is from the first full year after I planted them (I planted them in the fall). They're quite a bit larger now.


----------



## handy man88 (Jan 23, 2007)

chrisn said:


> BTW, that tree certainly looked perfectly healthy, whose idea was it to cut it down? I think you're wife had every reason to cry.Did you have a certified aborist look at i tfirst?
> 
> By the time ANY tree gets 50 feet above the house, we will be LONG gone from this earth. Don't worry about it and plant whatever you like.Just NOT a Lombardy poplar:whistling2:


I'm no arborist, but the tree didn't look healthy to me. The canopy wasn't especially thick, and it seemed cocked to the side.


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

handy man88 said:


> I'm no arborist, but the tree didn't look healthy to me. The canopy wasn't especially thick, and it seemed cocked to the side.


 
look at the most recent pic, sugar maple was perfectly healthy and would probably have stood there another 200 years or more.:yes:

Taking it down was a personal choice and I am not saying the op made a bad one, maybe a miss informed one, but it was his tree and his( or hers) decision, so who am I to say? It is a moot point now. Whatever you plant there is never going to get as big in our lifetime. Personally,I like the Sugar Maples( native) but the hybrids that the Dr, proposed are very colorful and grow relatively fast.


----------

