You don't need any qualifications...

[arb culture]

Do you want to expand Bundle?

 

I'm deeply frustrated as well, but are we frustrated about the same things, or with each other?

[Amelanchier]

I agree to point, but, a) what about the 25% of stuff that's not obvious, b) what about the stuff that's obvious but not actually hazardous, and, c) do you seriously think that the average unqualified gardener is going to give good arboricultural advice?

 

a) Yep what about it? Is it proportional to try to reduce risks beyond their already low level - the HSE don't think so. I share their view.

 

b) You mean the arb industrys bread and butter?

 

c) No - I guess that one was rhetorical...

 

[Amelanchier]

Using the term 'unqualified gardener' raises far more questions than it answers. Does the chap who cuts the grass once a week meet the criteria of an unqualified gardener? If so, are they now qualified to undertake the intitial assessment of trees?

 

Who's using the term unqualified gardener? The case study clearly says:

 

While Bill [the gardener in question] has no formal qualifications, his experience and regular presence on site mean he is more than capable of identifying imminent hazards. Employing a fully competent and approved contractor, eg. by the Arboricultural Association, for those trees where Bill is not sure of his diagnosis, gives Mrs Freemen the confidence that a reasonable maintenance system is in place from the point of view of tree health and public safety.

 

Now I agree there are questions to be asked about the draft and those of us who have sent comments to the consultation have probably done that but the dice are loaded here.

 

Its their scenario - so they can construct it to work despite reality.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Its no use telling us in here whats wrong with the draft! we all been talking this out for a while, and toady is your last chance to present your views to those that can change its format!

 

To me, its going as far in the opposite direction to the knee jerk reactions as it is possible to be, rather than having a balanced approach it seeks to over compensate, level two may not be needed for tree assesment, but there are plenty of level six qualified arbs driving down the highways doing surveys at 60-70 mph for £3.00 a tree! is it not fair a gardener should be able to do the same survey up close and personal, rather than flying by in a vehicle!

[arb culture]

a) Yep what about it? Is it proportional to try to reduce risks beyond their already low level - the HSE don't think so. I share their view.

 

b) You mean the arb industrys bread and butter?

 

c) No - I guess that one was rhetorical...

 

 

It's a bit academic now, but I'll try and answer as best I can.

 

a) The acceptable risk the HSE are talking about are societal. They are the average risks from the average tree to the average person.

 

An individual tree in an individual location may pose an exceedingly high risk to an individual person (or group of people).

 

It is quite common to come across a tree which is quite likely to fail within the next 12 months, which is big enought to kill people, and which it would fairly likely to land on someone if it did fail.

 

Whilst I agree that the overall risk from trees is well within the levels which it is acceptable, there are many individual trees which are clearly dangerous.

 

b) One of the stated aims of the document in question is to prevent excessive felling of trees. Do I need to explain this one further?

 

c) I think we agree on this one.

[arb culture]

Who's using the term unqualified gardener?

 

:confused1:"Bill has no formal qualifications":confused1:

[arb culture]

Its no use telling us in here whats wrong with the draft! we all been talking this out for a while, and toady is your last chance to present your views to those that can change its format!

 

To me, its going as far in the opposite direction to the knee jerk reactions as it is possible to be, rather than having a balanced approach it seeks to over compensate, level two may not be needed for tree assesment, but there are plenty of level six qualified arbs driving down the highways doing surveys at 60-70 mph for £3.00 a tree! is it not fair a gardener should be able to do the same survey up close and personal, rather than flying by in a vehicle!

 

Just trying to make sure people are aware if it. Some poeple said they couldn't be bothered to read it all, so I was just pulling out some of the points I'd noticed.

 

I'm not sure I've met any 60mph tree surveyors, but maybe I'm being naive.

 

[Bundle 2]

I dont know whether it's worth making the point that the parameters of risk , "set" by the HSE for want of another tag, are not rules/law whatever...If you learnt of the level set in the workplace ( and I dont include arborists as Im fairly certain we fall into a category with significantly higher exposure to risk even than most other workplaces..) you might be surprised. I will not even try and stab at it but urge you to look it up if you are interested mate....

I digress. The point I wanted to make I think, was the exposure to risk currently estimated by the HSE from trees to the general public is both low (which is right imo) but also includes the scenario you outline Arbculture. For as many times as that occurs. This is because as an industry we are actively " managing" tree risk. To what extent that is the case with respect to the efficacy of such management remains an awkward issue..

[arb culture]

Thanks for that Bundle.

 

I'm well aware of the 'parameters for risk' as you call them.

 

I think we all agree that the overall risks from trees are tiny, and partly this is because trees are so often 'managed'.

 

My concerns are that in asking under-qualified people to make an assessment of trees there will be two false management options occurring far more frequently than they do now.

 

The first is that dangerous trees will be retained, and the second is that safe trees will be removed.

 

If we as an industry are happy to accept that, then there is something wrong, because that is definitely not good tree care.