Same here hairmetal... Most of the area is secondary growth due to clear cuts. Not to mention that clear cutting gives the exact site requirements for many if not all invasive species (like aformentioned callary pear, siberian elm and bucthorns), it also eliminates any trees that are concidered long term overstory trees, like oak, maples, many nuts and others. You probably wouldnt even see half of them until it was too late. Many of the species we want are at the middle or end of succession. Cutting down the tall trees sets back succession, not much different from a moderate to severe fire. The same can be said for clearing the undergrowth. The best thing to do, and i will say its quite time intensive, is to go through the lot you end up with and inventory every tree and plant you possibly can. You will have no idea whether it is desierable to cut, plant or augment the existing forest if you dont know what you have. Then you can start to identify plants that you wish to give more light by cutting some branches and ground cover. IF there is an area where it has a good gap but nothing desierable, then is a good time to plant what you want. Also a good idea to keep an eye for dying trees so you can plant what you wish before it falls or you cut it. Clear cutting generally does way more harm then good. So is going in and ripping out invasive species. You just create the conditions for these types of plants to grow creating more work. Mind you there are lots of species which can use a perscribed burn to germinate or really start to grow. The least I can say is that it is anything as simple as cutting the large trees or undergrowth.

I definitely think there are times that an opinion from a certified profession arborist can be valuable, but there simply isn't enough information here to know whether this is such a time. If I had hired a professional arborist to trim all my large trees, I would have had to put a second mortgage on the farm and be in debt for the rest of my life. If the tree is not likely to fall and damage property or hurt someone, minor pruning and letting nature take its course might be the most sensible. If there are questions about whether this tree is potentially dangerous for a treehouse maybe it would be easier to pick another tree. When you have a large piece of land with a lot of trees, you have to use good judgment and do some of the work yourself. Some large trees can be significantly improved with ground level pruning. None of us can tell whether the tree warrants a professional's attention without a lot more information, but common sense and visual inspection can go a long way in this type of situation.

The lifespan of a redbud is about 25 years, so yours probably are very old. They can suffer from a canker disease, and droughts make these trees more vunerable. You could try cutting off and disposing of the affected parts, but I am afraid the trees will suffer a gradual decline. Sorry for the bad news. Redbuds are my favorite native small tree, but they have problems.

"only way to tell if your tree is safe if the arborist you call uses a IML Resistograph inspection drill..." Maybe this is being picky, but that statement is wrong in three key ways. First, there are multiple other methods used to evaluate decay and inner trunk structure/density. Some are considered at least as reliable as the resistograph. Second, such a test may very well be, and frequently is, unnecessary. It's very possible that a determination of significant risk of failure could be made with a brief inspection unaided by advanced techniques. Third, no one very familiar with the technology and with arboriculture would really claim that a resistograph evaluation could be conclusive as to whether a tree was "safe". I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think it's important that hasty statements aren't responsible for misinformation being promulgated in this forum.