H&S V's Ecology - bridging the gap

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I want to start a conversation, to see where it goes, see what others feel and think about this paradoxical situation.

 

on one hand we have a responsibility to "protect" the public from harm, from trees that could potentialy take a life.

 

on the other hand we have to embrace all life forms for the sake of the "natural nieghbourhoods"

 

these three images explain what i mean, for it is not simply a case of having "the wild woods" and the manicured "amenity trees" of our towns and parks. This is a far more complex issue, one that is IMO poorly understood and executed even at high level, bodies who should represent the very example we should aspire to. By this as an example, a SSSI site near me is being raped in the name of H&S, and the works is cleary and obviously "knee jerk"

 

 

 

 

Considering the "authority" in charge of overseeing the "managment" of this site I was stunned to find that Human impact/ecological surveys had revealed that thier was no " serious isues" that needed further monotoring or concern, yet the tree managment is not the only thing that is destroying this unique and very diverse habitat.

 

But I digress...

 

How can we bridge the gap between these issues?

 

How can we promote a more informed assesment of "risk" from trees, particulary in areas that are both habitat and recreational?

 

Should we be promoting within our training regimes a deeper more profound knowledge of fungal dynamics so that we do not simply fell anything that displays a structural weakening parasite such as this laetiporus, which can be easily managed with a deeper appreciation of its nature?

 

is it just a case of, this is an unacceptable risk and thats the end of it?

 

or do we feel that if the public was given the information and choice, they would have us do far less?

 

only managing that which is inevitable, rather than pre emptive.

 

i am inclined to believe this latter statment after having a group conversation in this SSSI site over the felled remains of a beech with early signs of merripilus, and all the bark damage to nieghbouring trees!

 

How do we drive forward a more sympathetic and "honest" level of risk managment whilst still keeping up to our moral and legal obligations to protect the public?

 

I hope I have explained what i am asking/thinking and i know this is a very complex issue and we wont agree on everything if at all!

 

i am however interested on your points of view, do we tend toward knee jerk reactions because we have only past references and perceptions? Do you feel there is room for improvment, that we can bridge this gap and make H&S and ecological principles work together, or will H&S always be as far removed from arborecology as it is today?

[WeeDee]

A good discussion point, Hama. Is this connected to your recently-started studies?

 

For my own two-pennies worth, I fear that the majority will have the day here. The public, who may not know all that is neccesary, will always err on the side of caution (or litigation) - a felled tree won't take you to court.

 

Yes, a way forward may be education and a more realistic way of evaluating 'risk', ie. the danger of driving to the woods compared to then walking in the woods, but we come back to the question - How will this be done, and who will orchestrate it?

 

I think that if this thread doesn't do anything else, it will at least allow Arbtalk members to display the varied views, on the value of trees, that they will have witnessed from the public over the years.

 

Good luck, Dee.

[Danavan]

Let nature take it's path in areas such as this:001_smile: prehaps not that usefull or lawfull but it is what I feel.

 

Some educucation in the form of info boards ect to inform people who would like to know should be visable.

 

Big warnings to ALL that enter expressing DANGER:sneaky2:

 

Great thred hamma:thumbup1:

[Andrew B]

This is a difficult issue.

 

I think the best solution to protect all trees would be to ban law suits involving them.

 

Its just another example of the nanny state within Britain.

 

If we want trees growing around us we should accept that they are not 100% safe.

[WeeDee]

 

I think the best solution to protect all trees would be to ban law suits involving them.

 

I'm not sure about that.

If landowners (garden ownwers) had no obligation to keep their property safe, then you - as a neighbour with children possibly - would have to rely on their sense of fairness, without any support from the law.

And if people were not too concerned about managing their trees, would we be doing what we do?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Both the H&S issue and the Arborecology issue are valid and very, equaly important.

 

But we tend to assume to much about what the public want us to do, especialy in a wild wood type scenario, these folk would respond well i think to an open approach and a new informational honest way of managing risk within these sites.

[Graham]

Both the H&S issue and the Arborecology issue are valid and very, equaly important.

 

But we tend to assume to much about what the public want us to do, especialy in a wild wood type scenario, these folk would respond well i think to an open approach and a new informational honest way of managing risk within these sites.

 

That's fine until little Tommy gets splattered by a piece of 'managed' dead wood. I'm ok with it but a good lawyer would go to town on it. Where do you draw the line? I wish I knew.

[Stephen Blair]

i have kids and i walk in woods daily, i am all for putting humans before trees. try telling someone whos kid has been killed by a falling limb that it could have been prevented BUT you did an assessment and it seemed ok. And if someone hasnt been doing their job them let the lawyers loose i say. There are just to many more important things going on in the country for councils and land owners to take so much time and spend so much money on. Survey the tree £200, fell the tree £400 problem solved. BUT if everyone took responsibilty for their actions and had plenty of common sense, they would look up and around them once in a while, not walk under ladders and run across busy main roads with out even looking. some folk just wont listen to ' no you cant' or ' you are not allowed' with out throwing a hissy fit and shouting about their human rights and someone is going to get sued. i blame big brother tbh, ever since that program was made 10 years ago and embraced loud mouthed rude idiots the country has gone mental, manners have been lost, courtesy is out the window and the idiots are getting away with their actions. rant rant rantity rant!!

[slasherscot]

personally within dropping distance of footpaths, i would deadwood or reduce to safe height ie monoliths or fell when necessary...a lot of woods up here have been handed over to local woodland trusts from Fc etc and have had no long term tree management , with all the grants available most have had paths and access made available to joe public with imo less regard to the safety and health of the mature trees

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

my concerns are for this site a sssi initialy, and i am going to set up a campaign, basicaly any tree within falling distance of the main paths is being taken out and now the woodland paths are 100ft gaps in the canopies, its so wrong.

 

This is (and I KNOW) a premier site in the U,K for fungi, best i have found in 15 years of looking at them, ashridge and burnham are good, but Whippendell, is in another leauge alltogether. I have to find a way to bridge this gap ethicaly legaly and inclusionaly