Debate: Should we top oaks or leave them be?

Last Tuesday I was on a job in Portland where a homeowner insisted I top a 50-foot red oak to keep it from hitting their roof, but my gut says that's asking for rot down the line. Then I saw a crew down the street doing the same thing to a maple and claiming it's fine if you know the cuts. So which is it, are we killing trees or just managing them when we top like that?

3 comments

3 Comments

jamief671mo ago

Topping is never the right call on an oak, plain and simple. Those cuts leave big wounds that don't seal over fast enough, and red oaks are especially prone to decay once the heartwood gets exposed. I've seen too many topped oaks turn into hazard trees five or ten years later with rot running down the trunk. If that homeowner is worried about the roof, better to remove the whole branch properly back to the collar or take the whole tree down and replace it with something that fits the space. The crew claiming it's fine if you know the cuts are just making excuses for bad work. No amount of "proper" topping changes the fact that you're leaving a tree with open wounds and weak sprouts.

logan_mitchell1mo ago

That whole mindset fits a bigger pattern I've noticed where people think they can cheat nature with enough know-how, but biology doesn't care about your intentions. It's like trying to patch a leaky roof with duct tape and calling it a permanent fix.

jessica7071mo ago

Honestly, that reminds me of the time my neighbor had a big oak taken down and the crew left the stump so high it looked like a table. @jamief67, you're totally right about those weak sprouts - I've seen them snap off in a storm and cause way more damage than the original branch ever would. Ngl, I'd rather just plant a smaller tree somewhere else than deal with a rotting hazard later.