The markings you're referring to are from a vine that was growing on the tree when I moved here. I cleaned those off right away.

As for type of maple, I don't know. It was a gift from a passing bird according to my neighbor.
I've posted a pic in case someone can ID it. Won't I still be dealing with a "V" problem if I just cut the middle branch now?

well .. if its a Japanese maple.. who cares ... more drama the better ...

if its a 100 foot maple .... we might start wondering how far it is from your house.. and if you really want a bird planted weed tree where it is ... if not ... then you prune at ground level ... what i believe is called a basal cut.. and apply un-diluted RUp or some such .... which of course.. solves the pruning issue.. lol ..

you seem to have a preconceived notion that a single trunk tree is NECESSARY .... such is more of an personal aesthetic ... not really imperative to the trees future ... boy i am having a hard time with the words ...

i would probably just get rid of it.. and plant a quality tree .. especially if its within 20 feet of the house ....

ken

Where I was getting the concern over the "V" was information I was seeing that it would be a point of weakness as the tree grows larger - like splitting when the tree is loaded with snow or ice. Of course I'm a long way from that as it's small and collects little to no ice in the winter.

Sounds like identifying the type that it is will make a difference as to whether or not I keep it. Can you tell from my picture above which it is?

Thanks much for all of your help.

Ramon, the identity of the maple is only pertinent in that if it turns out to be a small-growing type, some of these concerns for long-term structural strength matter less. Like with an Amur maple-you won't ever have ten thousand pound branches hanging over your head with one of those, so such concerns diminish.

So, let's say-and I couldn't tell for certain from the pic but I lean towards Norway maple-that it is a large-growing type: In that case, you might want to "subordinate" one or the other leads, probably the smaller and/or less centered of the two, by removing some of its length and taking out its growing tip. This will have the effect of slowing it down, allowing for gradual formation of a "branch collar-not a part of the branch but rather, a swollen area on the trunk where it is growing around the branch-and in time make total removal much more likely to be workable for the tree. Taking huge branches, especially co-dominant ones with no branch collar, off of trees results in wounds that the tree has great difficulty in closing off. So by doing the subordination work first, you increase the tree's chance of being able to do so.

You're on the right track and while Ken is correct that trees do not necessarily have to be single-leader, you can already see the cleavage planes in your specimen where breakage will occur someday if allowed to continue growing like that. so once again-a tow-stage process: Slow down the offending branches first via proper heading-back cuts (to a side branch, preferably one facing outward away from the trunk) followed later by possible complete branch removal. In some cases, it may turn out that this second step is not needed. In still other cases, we find that not enough was removed from the branch initially and we have to shorten it up a second time. Trial and error rules supreme in this kind of work!

+oM

Thanks for all of the great information.

I'm taking it all in before I do anything - no hurry really.

I'm glad I found this place!