Oak tree - virus/bacteria/infection?

[Paul Cleaver]

11 hours ago, EdwardC said:

 

 

'Area of risk'. What's that.

RISK | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

DICTIONARY.CAMBRIDGE.ORG

---

risk definition: 1. the possibility of something bad happening: 2. something bad that might happen: 3. in a…. Learn more.

AREA | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

DICTIONARY.CAMBRIDGE.ORG

---

area definition: 1. a particular part of a place, piece of land, or country: 2. a subject or activity, or a part of…. Learn more.

 

[Paul Cleaver]

40 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

Completely meaningless, and would certainly cause problems for you in your hypothetical court case.

 

I suspect you are talking about usage, or 'target' value, of a particular area or zone, or at least you should be. 

 

Usage/'target' values of an area determine frequency of inspection for an area, not the level of risk, for that you need other things; a hazard, a defect, liklihood of failure and, maybe, consequences of failure, which I  accept relates to usage/'target' value.

 

How do you reduce the level of risk to a high risk area posed by a tree tree that is well adapted to its location, without any defects, and not likely to fail before the next inspection. You must reduce the level of risk from high to a tolerable level it's the law, but you need to be reasonable, proportionate and take cost and benefit into account.

 

Same tree, same place, different definition, different question. Do you need to reduce the level of risk to a high use area posed by a tree tree that is well adapted to its location, without any defects, and not likely to fail before the next inspection.

Quote -Completely meaningless, and would certainly cause problems for you in your hypothetical court case.

I would explain in more detail in a real court case.

 

Quote-I suspect you are talking about usage, or 'target' value, of a particular area or zone, or at least you should be. 

Cant fault you on the above  Quotation

 

Quote-How do you reduce the level of risk to a high risk area posed by a tree tree that is well adapted to its location, without any defects, and not likely to fail before the next inspection.

 

Are you suggesting that included bark is not a defect in trees? If so, then I disagree. If this is a general statement, then get back on topic as its irrelevant in this thread.

 

Can you please explain what a tree tree is?  I do feel a little let down by your grammar Mr C.

 

 

 

[Andrew McEwan]

4 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Act of God is a well established legal principle. Whether it could be used in any particular defence in court would depend on the circumstances of that particular case. I, like most, have seen far, far, more included unions that haven't failed than have. Defect, whatever that is, doesn't equal fell whatever the circumstances. Otherwise youd have to fell a lot of trees in Kew, Bedgebury, Westonbirt, National Trust properties, in FC sites, national parks, along roads, paths, in parks and so on. Back to proportionate, cost, benefit, reasonable. No tree is safe, and you cannot eliminate risk.

I'm not aiming to change your mind Edward as I suspect that is difficult to do, just making sure that subsequent readers are aware that you firmly stating your view doesn't make other views invalid and undefendable. I don't think anyone has proposed mass felling as a response to included unions, but landowners would be be better served by early formative pruning to single leaders and using basic forestry thinning principals in arb, as well as reduction, cable bracing, target moving and felling. Your approach of..... survey - spot included union with target - guess will it fail before next inspection? - no - then no action - tree fails - act of god defence. Isn't an approach I would take, or recommend to clients as reasonable tree management. I'm confident that without removals, and if talking about included union defects I have made many trees 'safer' over the last 20+ years with the approach I use, and I believe you can eliminate risk for this particular type of defect without disproportionate cost.

[Paul Cleaver]

1 hour ago, EdwardC said:

I suggest you don't wait to explain it to that expensive barrister. Best not to give them a helping hand and avoid using high risk when you mean high usage.

 

The questions highlights the problem of defining areas as high risk instead of high usage. High risk by definition requires something to be done. But what can you do to reduce the high risk area to one that is a low risk area. No matter how much money you spend on the tree, the high risk area remains a high risk area, when in reality it never was. It was high usage.

 

I'm not saying included unions are not a defect, of course they are.

 

A tree tree is a tree I liked so much I typed it twice.

Quote - I suggest you don't wait to explain it to that expensive barrister. Best not to give them a helping hand and avoid using high risk when you mean high usage.

I didn't say it was high risk?  Anyway lets pretend I did!! High usage is a factor which could make it high risk the way I look at it.

I wouldn't need to explain this to a barrister  regarding this inclusion debate as would have reduced the risk by advising reduction.

I put it to you Mr C  that although you agree that including unions are a defect, you would be expecting the court to believe, if the inclusion fails,  that this was an act of god!!   "At this point the court erupts" "ORDER ORDER" exclaimed the Judge  

[Gary Prentice]

2 hours ago, Andrew McEwan said:

I'm confident that without removals, and if talking about included union defects I have made many trees 'safer' over the last 20+ years with the approach I use

Playing devils advocate  

 

To make something safer isn't there a presumption that there would be a failure without an action being taken? How are you predicting one included union will fail before the next inspection and another one will not? (Having spent several days viewing beech trees with typical, for beech, included bark unions.

[Khriss]

You can make a log safer by taking it off the stack and placing it on the floor. A standing tree has to be accepted as a hazard at some point in its life . I think a straight forward Arb report is a clear defenses against the possibility that union fails - we just had a MAJOR failure of a veteran Poplar ( dbh >1.2m ) last week, the consequences don't bear thinking about ( minor damage - but over a carparking area ) . But the 'landowner' has given no response . K

[Paul Cleaver]

7 hours ago, EdwardC said:

You talk about high risk areas. High usage is high usage, it doesn't equate to high risk. If you claim high usage equals high risk, how does reducing a soumd tree reduce the high usage and therefore, as you see it, risk, of the area. It doesn't. The risk arises from the presence of a hazard, the tree, and the liklihood of failure of a defect in the tree. If the risk of failure is low, then the risk to the users is low, no matter the usage of the area. I  accept the consequences of failure are higher in a high use area  but that doesnt affect the structural integrity/liklihood of failure of the tree. It means look closer and more often at the tree.

 

I've spent some time in court being cross examined. My advice is avoid it if possible. I've also had reports I've written pulled apart in the High Court. I'd avoid that too if possible.

 

You would need to explain  how you equate usage with risk. And equating the two is not a good thing to do. There's always going to be an expert on the other side, and unfortunately it won't be me, but someone a lot better.

 

If the included union fails it will depend on the circumstances prevailing at the time of the failure as to whether or not it was an act of God. A stable union under normal circumstances, no. Failure of a stable union in an exceptional and unpredictable storm...

When you say "useage" does that cover all potential targets such as a static inanimate object?

[Mick Dempsey]

This thread sort of got stuck in word meanings.

 

Did this today, 25 mètre Douglas with some classic inclusion. I was there to quote a take down for some crispy dead cedars, but pointed this out to the client and out it came (10 mètres from the house)

 

I actually roped it together twice on the way up as it’s two stems waving around independently in the wind gave me the collywobbles.

 

Cracked open lIke a chocolate orange on impact.

[Treeation]

Thats a fair big inclusion...what did the ears look like? Hard to tell from the photos?

 

[Mick Dempsey]

Not massive, but noticeable, there was ivy around the first half of the tree that hid the ears and telltale lines down the trunk.