Saving trees condemned to felling-help!

[Stephen Blair]

Great post:001_cool:

[James]

Tony, I think I'm starting to see what you are getting at, but I'm still a bit lost....

Are you saying that trees with obvious defects should be retained - even when they are located in areas where they might pose a threat to people and/or property?

I've got a very genuine interest in this - I did my MSc dissertation on a similar subject :-)

[treeseer]

Tony, I think I'm starting to see what you are getting at, but I'm still a bit lost....

Are you saying that trees with obvious defects should be retained - even when they are located in areas where they might pose a threat to people and/or property?

 

hama will no doubt speak too but generally the owner/manager decides how much "threat" they can handle (risk tolerance), and the arborist looks for ways to mitigate/lessen that risk to a tolerable level. Felling is at the end of the list of options.

 

BTW, what do you mean by "obvious defects"? All trees might pose a threat to people and/or property, and I've seen a lot of trees condemned for no good reason, is why I ask..

Edited May 17, 2012 by treeseer

[James]

Treeseer, you've opened up up a whole load of questions there...

I'd suggest that before an arb can 'look for ways to mitigate/lessen that risk to a tolerable level' they need to first know both what the level of risk is, and what the tolerable level is. I'm reluctant to get into that just now (cos it tends to cause arguments), I just want to know what Tony is getting at, I have a suspicion I agree with him, but I'm not sure - cos I'm not sure what he's getting at

 

Oh, and obvious defects? Well, I guess what I meant was arboricultural features which would be recognised by many arbs as being a potential indicator that the tree/s in question may have an elevated level of risk of failure... or something along those lines

[Andy Collins]

I think Tony has decided to go to a bigger and better place to air his views, as we "dont get it". He is, of course, more than welcome back at any time if he wishes to answer anything posted here, which Im sure he will in due course. He probably just needed a lie down....in a dark room.

[Jesse]

I think Tony has decided to go to a bigger and better place to air his views, as we "dont get it". He is, of course, more than welcome back at any time if he wishes to answer anything posted here, which Im sure he will in due course. He probably just needed a lie down....in a dark room.

 

:lol: He will soon be back to give us all a good kicking

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

:lol: He will soon be back to give us all a good kicking

 

nah, might be watching from a dark room while lying down having a fag!

[Jesse]

nah, might be watching from a dark room while lying down having a fag!

 

What no red wine or is your taste more for the apple juice

[treeseer]

"I'd suggest that before an arb can 'look for ways to mitigate/lessen that risk to a tolerable level' they need to first know both what the level of risk is"

 

yes and this includes both the risk of failure, and the risk of damage due to failure.

 

"...obvious defects? Well, I guess what I meant was arboricultural features which would be recognised by many arbs as being a potential indicator that the tree/s in question may have an elevated level of risk of failure... or something along those lines :)"

 

well there in that one sentence you have 3 qualifiers, so your meaning is now even less clear, from here. since tony is enjoying a fag (very different meaning in the US:001_tt2:) i'll suggest that it is this very type of ambiguity that leads to quick and erroneous condemnations, and that was the prompt for this thread.

 

or maybe i too need to lay down in a dark room...no fags thanks

[Mozza]

nah, might be watching from a dark room while lying down having a fag!

 

What's his name?