Veteran tree management in the urban environment

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Your point is well made Tony. To counter that argument however, an incident related to the safety of these structures would surely set back their inclusion in tree strategies. Its as much about perception as anything else in the public arena Im afraid!

Now I must off and do some essential "safety" motorcycle maintenance!

 

You make a good point, but eventualy in time, maybe not this time, we will have to fall in line with the germans and also european wide views that thier must be a recognition of nature and allow it room to breath without just considering the risk and responsability to humans.

 

the NTSG doc is a step in the right direction, (i dont say a perfect step!)

 

Certainly some good habitat in the decaying wood, but any suggestion that the above trees are Vetrans or come close to simultaing the habitats offered by true vetrans is way off the mark.

 

Quite brave keeping them in the locations they are but they are never going to be left alone and the full array of niches that the decaying stems will provide will be interupted as further works are carried out.

 

Good post Sean

 

Standing dead is a rare habitat, period. Its as distinct a habitat as any, a living veteran is another habitat entirley, to compare is foolish and naive.

[Bundle 2]

You make a good point, but eventualy in time, maybe not this time, we will have to fall in line with the germans and also european wide views that thier must be a recognition of nature and allow it room to breath without just considering the risk and responsability to humans.

 

the NTSG doc is a step in the right direction, (i dont say a perfect step!)

 

 

 

Standing dead is a rare habitat, period. Its as distinct a habitat as any, a living veteran is another habitat entirley, to compare is foolish and naive.

 

I agree the european directives are far more accommodating of the conservation values that our own legislation seems oblivious to. In particular BS3998 is so out of step these days. Out of step is not quite what I mean. Out dated maybe. ( I would say that, i have worked in conservation for a number of years now!! )

If as a contractor I was looking to site standards as those upheld with pride and/or confidence, I would most likely be looking to these european documents for guidance!

Having just biked across germany I can tell you that the situation is in fact quite different on the ground. For any number of factors frankly. It is something of a dichotomy that the german's legislation is both superior, in terms of conservation, and yet somehow, you can not fart without TUV and god knows what else. But then, the legislation is as much a european directive as ever it is german.

What a beautiful country it is though.

 

As for NTSG... Im afraid I have to disagree with you. I am left wondering what they think the point of it all is, having read their draft document. Disjointed , incoherent logic , and actually I fear it will lend nothing of substance to either the perception of risk, management of tree risk or owner/manager policies.

 

I have to agree with Phenom to some degree also...( sorry Tony...! )

The costs of repeated visits may not be entirely justifiable if the replanting policy suffers as a result. We need more canopy cover. For many of the same reasons we aspire to have these mono's valued for the biodiversity. And the sad truth is there is only so much money ( exactly £nil I understand! ) This is why having a Tree Strategy is so important for LA's.....This has echoes of the "reasoned discussion" of which we spoke in an earlier thread. I want to see LA's deliver value for money...AND i want to see them deliver what the people want, based on directives with purpose and point.

Do you know, here in the UK we supposedly have the most sophisticated tree legislation of any european country...? I am not sure what this soundbite means but if anyone felt able to expand on that comment, I would be happy to hear it:thumbup:

 

Lastly Tony, I am somehow wishing to express that I infact do not disagree with the views you have expressed so far. It is as always, a question of striking the right balance!!

Cheers.

[sean freeman]

As for NTSG... Im afraid I have to disagree with you. I am left wondering what they think the point of it all is, having read their draft document. Disjointed , incoherent logic , and actually I fear it will lend nothing of substance to either the perception of risk, management of tree risk or owner/manager policies

 

I certainly agree with this I believe Mike Ellison's public letter in response to the NTSG consultation is most succinct.

 

having a Tree Strategy is so important for LA's.....I want to see LA's deliver value for money...AND i want to see them deliver what the people want, based on directives with purpose and point

 

I certainly like to think that the pics are showing us a LA endeavouring to begin that process of engagement, it is to be sincerely hoped that they have a workable, working strategy behind the public notice.

Edited July 4, 2010 by sean freeman

[Paul Barton]

Do you have a link to Mike's letter Sean? I haven't seen it yet.

[sean freeman]

Here you go Paul top of the list on the page Downloads

[Paul Barton]

Brilliant, thanks Sean.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I certainly agree with this I believe Mike Ellison's public letter in response to the NTSG consultation is most succinct.QUOTE]

 

I couldnt have put it better, and is pretty much what i said in part in my response to it, but as i said, it offers a HOPE though not being perfect, that we MAY be at least begining to get some realism to to safety.

 

talking is the first step, as tony says, talking of a thing is at least an acknowledgement it exists!

 

One thing Ellison did not point out, probably for a reason, was that these stakeholders, who in my experience are no more applying these "principals" as anyone else may well continue to practice as they are, raping wild woods in the name of health and saftety while telling us all we can no longer do the same.

 

natural england was my prime example, as they continue to allow H&S to be applied in an innapropriate way within a 57 acre wood SSSI that is one of the most fungi rich habitats to be found.

 

they have also serveyed the site for "detrimental activity" and have acknowledged NONE!

 

So how am i supposed to take these stakeholders proposals seriously?

[Bundle 2]

Ahhh...yes, hypocrisy. That old chesnut!!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I certainly agree with this I believe Mike Ellison's public letter in response to the NTSG consultation is most succinct.QUOTE]

 

I couldnt have put it better, and is pretty much what i said in part in my response to it, but as i said, it offers a HOPE though not being perfect, that we MAY be at least begining to get some realism to to safety.

 

talking is the first step, as tony says, talking of a thing is at least an acknowledgement it exists!

 

One thing Ellison did not point out, probably for a reason, was that these stakeholders, who in my experience are no more applying these "principals" as anyone else may well continue to practice as they are, raping wild woods in the name of health and saftety while telling us all we can no longer do the same.

 

natural england was my prime example, as they continue to allow H&S to be applied in an innapropriate way within a 57 acre wood SSSI that is one of the most fungi rich habitats to be found.

 

they have also serveyed the site for "detrimental activity" and have acknowledged NONE!

 

So how am i supposed to take these stakeholders proposals seriously?

 

i should have added that this is my own view and should not be connected to the arbtalk forum, I alone stand by this statement and will gladly fight my own corner.

 

I welcome it in fact!

[sean]

Certainly some good habitat in the decaying wood, but any suggestion that the above trees are Vetrans or come close to simultaing the habitats offered by true vetrans is way off the mark.

 

 

 

Good post Sean

 

Howoldisit?When a tree is growing in average conditions, its girth may be a guide to whether it is ancient or not.

Consider the largest girth of the species of tree (see chart below) and relate it to that. There is a way of

estimating the age of a tree – see White, 1998. However, always bear in mind that soils, altitude, climate,

growing conditions and whether the tree has been pollarded (cut repeatedly through part or all of its life) can

affect the rate at which the tree grows so this method can only be used as a guide to ageing a tree. Ancient trees

growing in environmentally challenging places like the uplands may be signif icantly smaller.

The more we look at trees in different growing conditions, the more we learn about tree girth as a guide to

separating ‘ancient’ from ‘veteran’ and ‘notable’ trees. We have provided a provisional guide to typical girths of

some common tree species growing in average conditions, but as we gather more data we may need to adjust the

ranges.

Key characteristics* of an ancient tree

• Crown ‘growing downwards’ or flattening

(in conifers) through the ageing process

What is a veteran tree?

Veteran is a term describing a tree with habitat

features such as wounds or decay. The terms ancient

and veteran have been used interchangeably in the

past, however, it is important to know what the

differences between them. A veteran tree is a

survivor that has developed some of the features

found on an ancient tree, not necessarily as a

consequence of time, but of its life or environment.

Ancient veterans are ancient trees, not all veterans

are old enough to be ancient. A veteran may be a

young tree with a relatively small girth in contrast

to an ancient tree, but bearing the ‘scars’ of age such

as decay in the trunk, branches or roots, fungal

fruiting bodies, or dead wood. These veteran

features will still provide wildlife habitat.

 

thanks for taking the time for posting phenom. These trees bear many marks associated with the term 'veteran'.....cavities, flaking bark, cracks, hollows....they are surely vets in their own way as providing all the hallmarks necessary for wildlife habitat?