Can/should this oak be saved?

[drinksloe]

After your good advice before I'm a little surprised at this. I wouldn't worry about bats and future work, all tree workers should be carrying out a scoping survey immediately before working on any tree (no extra costs there), and yes, if a tree poses a danger that overrides the bats legal protection.

Where in the country is this tree?

 

So wot happens if ur doing routine work and ur intial bat scoping finds a bat roost being occupied??

 

Surely any tree with a bot roost or a bat box on becomes protected and u will need a licence to do any major works on it?

So ur work would stop even destroying a summer roost in winter time can be an offence.

 

In the past i have had to carry out ariel bat inspection with a bat worker watching for pipeline jobs and have recently had to pay a small fortune to get my roof inspected for a renovation.

Even thou no bats found if the roofers find more than 4 bats all work has to stop while i get it re inspected and apply for a licence or pay for a bat worker to sit and watch the roofers incasre they find another 1.

[Mick Dempsey]

You could keep it with heavy pruning, it would be an eyesore imo.

 

I'd have it out and plant a few others nearby.

[sloth]

I'd say that you're pretty much on the right track there agg221, with the one proviso that I think your initial pruning is too much; That tree has lost maybe upto a quarter of its leaf bearing twigs already. And yes, gnarly old veteran trees like this one are in my mind a beautiful thing, essential for all manner of wildlife, and sadly a rare thing due to either risk aversion or looking 'untidy' so being felled - shame!

Drinksloe, a tree with a bat roost isn't itself protected, anymore than a tree with a birds nest in is. Would you discourage birds from your garden though? I don't mean to be arsey, sorry if I come across that way!

This tree has been hollow a while, with what looks like brown rot (beefsteak or chicken of the woods fungi quite likely), so there's a chance it was being used by bats anyway. I'd suggest reducing bit by bit over many years will only ever be removing outer, probably not large diameter, and probably not hollow parts of branches - so not likely to disturb bats and hence no need for closer inspection than a standard pre cut check by the climber.

I also appreciate that cost can be an issue, but I expect that 3 or 4 small reductions (not more than a half day for two guys and a chipper each time) over the next 15-20 years might be comparable to a one off 1.5-2 days work clearing it all and maybe replacing it. Plus then you'd lose what in my view is an asset of a tree, which has taken hundreds of years to reach its current size and interest, (and you might then be destroying a bat roost! *tongue firmly in cheek*)

If you were nearby I'd drop in and have a chat gratis. I've felled too many like this over the years unnecessarily based on misguided info or firewood hungry bosses, it's nice to be in a position now to try and tip the balance back a little.

Good luck whatever you choose to do with it...

Edited February 27, 2017 by sloth

[agg221]

I'd say that you're pretty much on the right track there agg221, with the one proviso that I think your initial pruning is too much; That tree has lost maybe upto a quarter of its leaf bearing twigs already.

 

I agree that it would be hitting it very hard. My thinking was based on two observations - the first that there is a crack running down from the left hand side of the fracture to the ground and the second that the remaining section on the right hand side looks rather weak, just below where the branch springs off to the right and I would be particularly concerned about that section failing further.

 

I think I would definitely make the two right-hand cuts asap on those grounds. On the left hand part of the tree, would you reckon the overall remaining cross-section of the trunk is sufficient for it to carry more sail? If so, I'd be interested in how far back you would take it, and whether you would go for reducing height or reducing spread as the priority?

 

Alec

[Notmegov]

If it's not in a public place just leave it alone. Probably survive another 300 years.

 

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Arbtalk mobile app

[sloth]

Difficult to say for certain based on the one grainy pic, but I reckon the right side is at higher risk of failure and looks to be more over the track (no idea how often it's used though), so probably just a little bit less there than your line. The rest of the tree, on the 'other side' of the main failure, looks less critical (from a likelihood of failure and potential target point of view) and I think I'd take height as priority, and spread next time round.

I hope the op keeps us updated...

[sloth]

If it's not in a public place just leave it alone. Probably survive another 300 years.

 

Sent from my SM-J510FN using Arbtalk mobile app

This too is a possibility, certainly the cheapest!

[Fisherman]

The track is used every day as it's the only access to my house. At the moment I'm leaning towards cutting the whole thing down but have not decided for certain. It's about 50 meters in front of the house and I'm not sure I want to be reminded every day what a stunning tree we used to have. I know it will still have tremendous value to wildlife but we are surrounded by trees. I have a second guy coming out tomorrow for a look and will make a decision after that. Thanks for all your replies so far.

[john meehan]

I think maybe what agg221 sugested was a little drastic and is probably what you woukd be aiming for long term. Over the years it would build its self a graet little crown and become a nice tree in its own quirky way. It would be a shame to lose ir.

 

Id come to have a look but im bit far out i think.

 

Sent from my HTC One using Arbtalk mobile app

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

..and yes, if a tree poses a danger that overrides the bats legal protection. QUOTE]

 

Do tread very careful here as the phrase "even if acting in accordance with an otherwise lawful act" is cited somewhere regarding bat protection legislation (perhaps take a look here Bats and the Law - Bat Conservation Trust )

 

The danger would have to be both imminent and demonstrable.

 

It would be interesting to 'QTRA' the risk level here and odds on it would come out low, or at worst moderate, owing to infrequency of passage, relatively speaking, and even lower if the crown was reduced to reduce the likelihood of failure...all speculative of course.

 

Interesting thread, thanks all

Paul