BS3998 2010- putting the specific into specification

[Amelanchier]

Paul - I agree. In addition, I prefer to spec what will be left of the tree, not what will be removed! What I meant was that I have heard a lot of complaints about the sudden introduction of precision (and concerns about its enforcement - possible or otherwise).

 

However, my point is that level of precision has always been present (although as you point out, subject to interpretation!). 30% of a dimension is a real number (whichever dimension you define) and therefore there has been no increase in the neccessary accuracy - just an effective clarification in the definition of the dimension!

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Paul - I agree. In addition, I prefer to spec what will be left of the tree, not what will be removed! What I meant was that I have heard a lot of complaints about the sudden introduction of precision (and concerns about its enforcement - possible or otherwise).

 

However, my point is that level of precision has always been present (although as you point out, subject to interpretation!). 30% of a dimension is a real number (whichever dimension you define) and therefore there has been no increase in the neccessary accuracy - just an effective clarification in the definition of the dimension!

 

Tony, indeed, clarification of what is everything (see attached).

 

I beleive we are entering a period of transition in rolling out this message and I see the BS3998 seminars as part of this process. Realistically I reckong anything upto 18months before we see specs reflecting the intentions of the standard.

 

Thanks for your post.

Paul

 

PS THANK YOU to 'Aspect Tree Consultancy' of S. Devon (Dom Scanlon, Jon kiely and Chris Widdicombe for the illustartion AND invalubale input in producing the seminar content!)

TreeCrownVolumeIllus.pdf

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Firstly glad to see some good posts from all above.

 

secondly I had no intention of perpetuating a negative perception of the BS 3998 2010 document, it is as far as I can see a great piece of work BUT....

 

I know just how "difficult" SOME people in this industry can be towards those carying out a job that is difficult to nigh on impossible at times, carries considerably risk (we cant deny that) and have to cope with evryman and his dog telling us how to do our job.

 

there is already very little respect for the craft of a climber, for the natural feel for his art, and my only point and purpose was to A) raise awareness of the changes as well as the standard in the first instance. B) get as many climbers ect (grafters) to the seminars on it as promoted by the AA. and finally C) as a result empower coal face arbs with the knowledge and details that will enable them to not only have a full appreciation of the finer details but also from this gain the confidence and skill to argue THEIR work to those that could well be breathing down their already hot stressed necks.

 

The standards are getting high, and that's wonderful, details are a good thing, refinement is a good thing, but this has as much potential for problems as it does for solving them, and it will be the people who are using it as a bludgeon that will be alienating arbs from the standards.

 

The standard will make arbs lives harder, but one would hope in a good and positive way, The point of this thread is to ensure my fellows in the climbing side of things understand it and embrace it in a pro way and more importantly gain some professional pride in doing so:thumbup1:

 

I hope that made sense? or shall I STOP IT?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

7.2.1 General

The timing (see Clause 5) and extent of pruning (especially regarding

the number and size of wounds; see 7.2.4) should be determined by

both the management objectives (see Annex B) and an assessment

of the likely effects on the tree and its surroundings. The assessment

should take account of species tolerances, the tree’s age and condition

(see 7.2.3) and any implications for the safety of other trees.

Where it is important to assess the energy levels of the tree, this

may be done by means of a simple iodine staining test (see A new

tree biology/Modern arboriculture [30, 31]). This test ascertains the

concentration of starch in a sample from the last three sapwood

increments taken from small cores representative of the whole tree.

[RobArb]

not really practical for every pruning job though is it?

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

not really practical for every pruning job though is it?

 

no and I wasnt suggesting it was, just that it is a rather technical piece that I found rather interesting, so much so im going to have a good read of " a new tree biology" tonight:thumbup1:

[RobArb]

its great when a little snippet of information gets you reading material you haven't touched in a while and delving into it:thumbup:

[Alinicoll]

That`s an interesting idea to test the previous 3 increments with iodine. I`d not heard that before but. However, certainly not practical for Mrs Miggins Apple tree but an interesting thought for older trees.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

That`s an interesting idea to test the previous 3 increments with iodine. I`d not heard that before but. However, certainly not practical for Mrs Miggins Apple tree but an interesting thought for older trees.

 

Indeed, but one things for sure, it is a piece of knowledge that many more people posses now because of this thread:001_cool:

 

and that is what i am all about:thumbup:

[Paul Barton]

Hang on a minute there, you didn't actually write the British Standard!