Had to choose between climbing spurs and a pole pruner for a backyard oak job

I was up against a tall red oak in a tight backyard in Houston and had to decide if I should spike up it or try to reach the deadwood from the ground. I went with climbing spurs since the tree was already losing bark and had no real value, but I felt bad about the wounds I left behind. The job got done in half the time my buddy said it would take with a pole pruner, but I'm not sure if I made the right call for the tree's health. Has anyone else chosen spurs over a pole for a removal that wasn't urgent?

2 comments

2 Comments

evanpalmer9d ago

Spurs definitely work faster in a situation like that, especially when the tree is already in rough shape. The time savings alone can justify it since you're not fighting with a pole pruner over every branch. But yeah, the wounds are the tradeoff and they can lead to decay if the tree sticks around. For a red oak that's already losing bark and has no value, I would not stress about it too much. The tree is probably on its way out anyway, so a few spike marks are just cosmetic at that point. Your buddy's half time estimate says everything about the efficiency difference. Pole pruners have their place but for a tight backyard with deadwood up high, I think you made the right call.

faith_perez9d agoMost Upvoted

Oh man, totally agree with all that. The way people freak out about spike marks on a dying tree is just silly sometimes. Like, that tree is not winning any beauty contests anyway, you know? The bark is already peeling off and the branches are falling apart, so a few little holes from spikes are basically nothing. I've seen guys spend hours with a pole pruner on a tree that clearly has one foot in the grave, and it just seems like wasted effort. Your buddy cutting the time in half proves the point better than anything. Pole pruners are great for a healthy tree you want to keep around, but for something that's already failing, just get the job done and move on.