Managing Trees with Decay & Dysfunction

[sean freeman]

I think Guy was merely conveying his annoyance at not attaching the article to the previous post.

 

I cannot believe it has been seven years since that piece was published...what the heck have I've been doing all this time (not much it appears!!!)

 

It is incredibly hard to pull Arbs kicking and screaming from their comfortable position as hazard detectors, even harder to get them to realize it is NOT our role to minimize risk...something some find impossible to get their heads around...if that were the task then the action would be the same every time - remove the tree.

 

Our role should (IMO) be to provide qualified advice to enable the reasonable and proportionate management of the assessed risk in the trees we inspect.

 

Way too many in our industry focus on managing the secondary risk - nothing to do with the tree but focused on imagined future litigation if and when failure occurs.

[James]

I think Guy was merely conveying his annoyance at not attaching the article to the previous post.

 

I cannot believe it has been seven years since that piece was published...what the heck have I've been doing all this time (not much it appears!!!)

 

It is incredibly hard to pull Arbs kicking and screaming from their comfortable position as hazard detectors, even harder to get them to realize it is NOT our role to minimize risk...something some find impossible to get their heads around...if that were the task then the action would be the same every time - remove the tree.

 

Our role should (IMO) be to provide qualified advice to enable the reasonable and proportionate management of the assessed risk in the trees we inspect.

 

Way too many in our industry focus on managing the secondary risk - nothing to do with the tree but focused on imagined future litigation if and when failure occurs.

 

Thanks Sean, I thought 'hagwumps' might be some text-talk that I'd not come across before.

 

I don't share your opinion that arboriculture hasn't moved on much in the last seven years though - there's been a massive shift in tree related risk perception and management. A lot of very sincere and intelligent people have invested an awful lot of time and effort into this issue. We have seen paper after paper, research on risk and the perception of risk, analysis on the legal implications of tree risk assessment, seminars, workshops, and even a couple of new nationally recognized qualifications on tree risk and hazard assessment... Actually, the last seven years have been an exciting and interesting time to be curious about the issues surrounding the risk of harm from trees. :-)

 

I'm just editing quickly because I've just realised how international this forum is. I'm talking about the UK in my post, is it very different in your part of the world?

Edited October 25, 2012 by James

[treeseer]

James, the intent was to demonstrate why documenting strengths along with weaknesses is essential to do. Yet most reports i see are all about dfects.

 

Hagwumps are wumps on a hag, of course.

[sean freeman]

James I am not trying to play down what some have put out there and are still doing - I am always keen to publicize positive developments within our industry - however like Guy I see a massive disconnect between what some individuals are championing and what the majority of tree risk assessment reports still present...

[treeseer]

James, having hung out a little in oz and england recently i think there's a lot more in common w the usa than different...but they are different! sean's view might differ more temporally than regionally--he and i may compare the past 7 years to the 4-5 previous 7-year periods in the tree racket, and not see much change. shorter timeframe would enhance significance, orsomethinglikethat.

 

but we're not so jaded that we are not occasionally stunned by the ease with which some of our colleagues say fell. if i may speak for the hon. mr. freeman...

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Thanks Sean, I thought 'hagwumps' might be some text-talk that I'd not come across before.

 

I don't share your opinion that arboriculture hasn't moved on much in the last seven years though - there's been a massive shift in tree related risk perception and management. A lot of very sincere and intelligent people have invested an awful lot of time and effort into this issue. We have seen paper after paper, research on risk and the perception of risk, analysis on the legal implications of tree risk assessment, seminars, workshops, and even a couple of new nationally recognized qualifications on tree risk and hazard assessment... Actually, the last seven years have been an exciting and interesting time to be curious about the issues surrounding the risk of harm from trees. :-)

 

I'm just editing quickly because I've just realised how international this forum is. I'm talking about the UK in my post, is it very different in your part of the world?

 

I agree with James here, though it depends on where you look at the industry, academic research is slow process and takes a while to filter into the main stream of arboriculture, even when it does it is via a mediator. A person who attends and is interested in theory of arboriculture to then take that info to the masses who do not have any interests in deep ecology or arb theory. Its here at THIS type of resource/interface where real shifts occur, and I agree with James that there has been certainly in the last 4 years a major increase in awareness of many issues.

 

I am feeling very posative about the near future, even this forums general members are posting questions and finds and inquiring on things they did not before consider.

 

We as an industry are becoming acutley aware of the true nature of trees and the environment in general, and the role trees play in all. As long as we all continue in this quest for truth and of knowledge things can only get better, more sustainable, and sooner or later all that was before will fade into distant memories. The future is bright:thumbup1:

[James]

Ha ha - I'll look out for those wumps next time I see a hag ;-)

 

I understand the frustration at psuedoscience and 'guesswork posed as evidence' based decision making (both pet peeves of mine). I also understand the frustration at misguided fear of legislation (but I don't know the subtleties of US or Australian legislation).

 

I just don't want to be all about the negative, there's a lot of good people doing good stuff out there (and having read your articles - you are one of them tree seer) :-)

[David Humphries]

Dead standing pine that we chose to leave up as a monolith as its a relatively rare habitat strata here in north London.

Its been standing dead for 3/4 years.

 

It's on the edge of a public access meadow, but had a slight weight lean towards its neighbour.

 

Felt comfortable that if it was to go it would hang up in the adjacent tree.

 

.

[David Humphries]

Felt comfortable that if it was to go it would hang up in the adjacent tree.

 

Well, decay got the better of it this weekend and it ended up in its neighbour.

 

.

[David Humphries]

Compared the lean of the tree (that received the dead one), with the earlier shot from a few years ago and then took a clinometer reading of the live tree before attempting to remove the hung up one.

 

.