health and safety a controversial subject?

[munkymadman]

how about natural fracture pruning, veteranising, leaving stubs...the whole environmental arb side of things...I know a lot of people who don't like it!.

Also, crown reduction - is it really necessary?...shouldn't we be thinning trees instead?...now thats controversial...we all need the money from reductions!

 

how can you say are crown reductions necessary. in alot of urban situations its a matter of reduce or remove. you can't have large trees growing into buildings, and its a shame just to cut them down. yes i've done plenty of pointless reductions. it's also best advised for failure prevention 10% reduction alongside a 15% thin.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Work positioning requirement for 2 'load bearing' anchor points is a good one, does that mean two attachments when using a saw or all the time? Using a saw, well then that's fair enough most of the time but sometimes one attachment is safer in certain situations and I believe it says that in the good climbing practice?

 

Refresher training? I have to do that to satisfy a local authority to be on their approved list, I don't know how much it's going to cost yet but hey, I will jump through those hoops if It means will gain more work from them.

 

Helmets? yes, chainsaw boots? Not always necessary, chainsaw gloves? Waste of time!

 

 

Hi High Scale,

 

Re- 2 load bearing anchor points = all the time, strictly speaking, but definatley when using a chainsaw in the tree. After saying that I acknowledge most of the industry doesn't use two LB anchor points at all times, and that not many accidents are caused to professionals by anchor point failure, BUT a rope access interpretation of the W@H Regs requires this.

 

Don't worry, help is at hand in that the AA has a very recently appointed working group assembled (inc. HSE) and this is one of the points we will endeavour to address, along with several related others, as we move forward so carry on as you are but just be sure to double-check, visually (binos) and by two-person loading at ground level, if you have any concerns.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

how can you say are crown reductions necessary. in alot of urban situations its a matter of reduce or remove. you can't have large trees growing into buildings, and its a shame just to cut them down. yes i've done plenty of pointless reductions. it's also best advised for failure prevention 10% reduction alongside a 15% thin.

 

It always makes me laugh, thin AND reduce, reduction tends to leave the tree thin enough on its own!

[munkymadman]

It always makes me laugh, thin AND reduce, reduction tends to leave the tree thin enough on its own!

 

probably why it prevents them from falling over not much sail effect with a hat rack.

how about pollarding vs reducing! very old style of tree care loads of for and againsts. the lazy mans reduction.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

probably why it prevents them from falling over not much sail effect with a hat rack.

how about pollarding vs reducing! very old style of tree care loads of for and againsts. the lazy mans reduction.

 

I would think it was developed as a lazy mans method, lazy is relative, in the old days when saws where primitive axes even, pollarding trees probably occured by accident and started to become a standard practice. As society developed it was then perpetuated by the timber or trunk being or belonging to the lord of the manor, while the limbs and crown (pollards allowed repeated and sustainable fuel and resource) belonged to the commons people.

 

this system survived right up till around 50 60 years ago as far as i can tell?

[munkymadman]

i was in nepal last year and noticed that pollarding seemed to be their way of a sustainable fuel resource(in rural areas). interesting what you said about the lords owning the lumber. i'm assuming thats not the case in nepal and wondered why they didn't favour coppicing over pollarding unless pollarded growth is more vigourous than coppiced

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

i was in nepal last year and noticed that pollarding seemed to be their way of a sustainable fuel resource(in rural areas). interesting what you said about the lords owning the lumber. i'm assuming thats not the case in nepal and wondered why they didn't favour coppicing over pollarding unless pollarded growth is more vigourous than coppiced

 

When you think of the energy reserves held within the root area and also the main stem, regrowth would establish and mature far quicker in my mind.

 

also easier to cut than a thick trunk with primitive tools.

[Doug Blease]

To keep the regeneration away from grazing livestock.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

To keep the regeneration away from grazing livestock.

 

good point and one i had forgotten (senior moment!) but was also done as the timber belonged to the land owner as apposed to the then maybe now, common law that the brush and limbs belonged to the commons people.

 

i believe this is how Epping was saved in part, that the case was fought in that the trunks did indeed belong to the land agent, but the limbs of old tradition belonged to "the people":thumbup:

[Doug Blease]

Yes your right on that historical background too. I think we have derailed the thread, was it not a H+S thesis we were supposed to be talking about?