Positive Action on Tree Safety……?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Does anyone have a view on this strange contradiction.

 

The HSE stating that risks have been "adequately managed" and neville saying "an end to the chainsaw"

Edited June 12, 2010 by Tony Croft aka hamadryad

[David Humphries]

On reflection, I'm steering toward this being a metaphor for the future, where there should be a lot less chainsaw work (removal), with more emphasis on rhizosphere work and more trees with "issues" being maintained and re-invigourated rather than chopped.

 

Or at least, I'm hoping that's what he meant.

 

 

Statements like that are put together to make people talk.

 

 

 

 

.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

On reflection, I'm steering toward this being a metaphor for the future, where there should be a lot less chainsaw work (removal), with more emphasis on rhizosphere work and more trees with "issues" being maintained and re-invigourated rather than chopped.

 

Or at least, I'm hoping that's what he meant.

 

 

Statements like that are put together to make people talk.

 

 

 

 

.

 

Statments like that have an inherant risk too, those with a little understanding will latch onto these statements and blow them out of proportion.

 

Potentialy the "hippy tree huggers" will use it to give credability to THEIR approach, and credibility will be lost in the fog.

 

There appears to be a conflict of interests in the statements which needs some clarification, the only thing clear at this stage is that there is a great need to clarify the lack of clarity in the documents purpose and direction.

 

It has great implications, but there is also much danger in this, we need to sort this out in fine detail, and remove "interpretation" from the document.

[common lime]

Thank you Tony that was a great summary of the document.

 

I found the document very difficult to read given its formatting and lack of diagrams, figures, pictures etc. I also got bored of reading the same old tree propaganda section at the being of the document. In the risk section given there probably are not the stats anywhere there was no mention of near risks or injury caused by trees. I throught that more than a bit odd, I wonder if there is an attempt to play down the risk?

 

Putting my old Highways hat on, I found the document more than disappointing. But than again, I understand that this document is not really the base line for Local Authority or is it? I also have a large problem with the suggestion that trees along rural public footpaths do not have to be assess. The need for assessment should be determined by the occupancy of the target area for some rural public footpath this can be high i.e. national park, footpaths in those pub walking books etc. I wounder if this recommendation has been put in as the request of the country landowners association. I believe one of the reason they were against the CROW Act was that this could increase the liability of their owners.

 

Did anyone else not note in one of the examples that an AA contractor was used but in the Council example they just used contractors. I wonder if this is a plug for the AA but the reality is that with all Council budgets being cut by 10% this is not an affordable reality. That bring me nicely to costs given that they will not be a lot of money in the next four years for most service provide by local or national government and their agents.

 

I predict either two strategies will be adopted for tree risk management; 1 only urgent works carried out 2. carryout all works necessary to removal all risk permanently i.e. why repollard every year when you can fell it now. This document in its current form could be used to justify tree risk management policy 1 i.e. only need to do urgent works given tree risks failures that result in death are very rear there is no need to prune the majority of hazards within failure of a high value target like a highway. But the stats in this document are based on the old tree Arb methods of pruning out the hazards in closed proximity to the highway. Therefore will not the adoption of policy 1 result in more tree failures and deaths and how many deaths or injury's will it take before this document will be reviewed.

 

All in all a very disappointing document, I come to the conclusion that it is trying to meet the needs of several different audiences and failing to meet the needs or concerns of any.

[Mesterh]

1. Trees are good

2. They break

3. Its not a big deal

4. The law is complicated

5. Be reasonable

 

 

 

 

Cheers for that.

 

 

Think of all the trees that could have been saved from pulping

by using those 5 points instead off that big document.

[Amelanchier]

On reflection, perhaps no. 4 should read "the law is vague".

 

If there was a no. 6 it would read "Be excellent to each other, dude" and no. 7 would require a short air guitar riff.

 

Edited June 12, 2010 by Amelanchier
Reload image

[felixthelogchopper]

On reflection, perhaps no. 4 should read "the law is vague".

 

If there was a no. 6 it would read "Be excellent to each other, dude" and no. 7 would require a short air guitar riff.

 

 

Party on, Tony dude!

Edited June 12, 2010 by Amelanchier
see above :D

[arb culture]

All in all a very disappointing document, I come to the conclusion that it is trying to meet the needs of several different audiences and failing to meet the needs or concerns of any.

 

I think this is a fair appraisal.

 

If you want to have a quick understanding of this document, concentrate on the case studies at the end.

 

Especially consider case 3 where a gardener is doing most of the surveying work, and it is implied that arb association approved contractors are now fully qualified consultants. Perhaps Paul call tell us - what is the assessment criteria for an approved contractor's ability to assess hazard trees?

 

Case 1 suggests a tree surgeon is now a competent surveyor (anyone remember Poll v Bartholemew?). Be honest, most of us know of several trees surgeons who will condemn trees with the slightest defect, either because they are scared of the liability, or because they are unscrupulous and want some extra work.

 

Also, in all the case studies it states that the duty holder is satisfied that they have done all that is sufficient in each case. Well, that's lovely, and good for them - but what do the NTSG think?

 

The document is generally a step in the right direction, but there are some serious problems with it.

 

Please, please read it and return comments to them.

[arb culture]

In the risk section given there probably are not the stats anywhere there was no mention of near risks or injury caused by trees. I throught that more than a bit odd, I wonder if there is an attempt to play down the risk?

 

As it happens I wondered the same thing about 2 years ago, so I've just completed some in depth research into this issue. The numbers of injuries from falling trees and branches are tiny - the DARM research suggests about 55 a year, and my research came up with a similar result for the numbers of people admitted to hospital from such injuries. Generally a tree is much more likely to hurt someone by poking them in the eye than by dropping something on them. And older people and young children are more likely to be injured when a tree does drop something (perhaps because they can't get out of the way quick enough).

 

In addition, in the vast majority of cases the injuries were dealt with at A+E and the patient was sent on their way with no further action required.

 

I don't think the risks are being downplayed, but I do think the roles and responsibilites of duty holders, contractors and consultants are slightly confused. Disappointing in a document which I hoped was intended to clarify these very issues.

[BatiArb]

Im not sure that I am Andy, but please elaborate, this is important and I want to ensure i understand what your concerns are? and what you feel I have missed?

 

My greatest and gravest concern right at this minute is neville fays statement at thursdays ATF presentation that and i quote-

 

"I predict that within ten years we will see the end of the chainsaw"

 

I think this is a wholey dissapointing direction from a man who has just been voted for and won the "contribution to arboriculture award" i myself voted for him, as will have many other "chainsaw" users here.

 

 

Tony,

 

This is the implication of the document as well.

 

There are a number of controversial statements that both illude to and openly state that arboriculture is recommending, specifying and undertaking an excessive amount of tree work, that is disproportionate to the risks posed by trees.

 

Now to a point I do agree with this, but I also think that this document (much like Nev's statement) does push the point too far in the other direction.