Saving trees condemned to felling-help!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Jules; I don't remember askin you a goddamn thing! you were saying? Pulp Fiction 1994 classic . Tony i love your ethos on life:thumbup1:

 

 

Dont forget theres always a private email address!

 

The walls have eyes and ears you know:lol:

[treeseer]

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

Thanks James; no accusations; my issue is with the term, which is so vague I find it useless at best and often misleading. The doc you linked does clarify a little bit, once one gets through the other stuff, to actual information.

 

Of course it is Tony...theres no knowledge of any quality being shared here at all I suppose

 

Right you are, Steven--one can only get edified by ascending with the higher minds over at the consultant's site, away from these scruffy arbo types.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

 

Right you are, Steven--one can only get edified by ascending with the higher minds over at the consultant's site, away from these scruffy arbo types.

 

No I never refered to the UKTC forum in anything I said, you all assume to much and why i can not be bothered to defend myself or justify myself, I have NOTHING to prove.

 

especially to you Guy.

 

99% of the folk in here are sweet as a nut and ive all the time in the world for them, but the odd 1 percent that only come into my threads to make some snide comment or detract or wind up have over recent months put me right of this method of engagement.

 

so a few as always running it ruining it for others, as in so many things in life.

[James]

Thanks Treeseer, it's easy to feel slighted when it's not intended on forums, so I appreciate the reply. And next time I'll give you a page number so you don't have to trawl through pages of stuff to find the section in question

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on why you think the term 'obvious defects' is useless and misleading though. I use the phrase quite a lot, it's useful and I don't find it misleading at all. If it's time for a re-think I'd be very glad to know.

[James]

Tony, rise above it, don't let them get to you. I'm not looking for justification, and I'm certainly not having a pop... I honestly wanted to know your reason for starting this thread.

 

You brought up so many issues in your first post that I'm genuinely confused. I just wanted a bit of clarification, that's all.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Tony, rise above it, don't let them get to you. I'm not looking for justification, and I'm certainly not having a pop... I honestly wanted to know your reason for starting this thread.

 

You brought up so many issues in your first post that I'm genuinely confused. I just wanted a bit of clarification, that's all.

 

Well the main issue being so called experts writing off trees with over reaction to faults etc

[treeseer]

Well the main issue being so called experts writing off trees with over reaction to faults etc

And when they do, they cite "obvious defects", which are too often not looked at sufficiently to determine whether or how much they affect risk. aka snap judgments. James, the term is bothersome because it is too often used in this manner. 6 years ago I wrote the attached, but have seen risk assessment remain a defect = hazard = removal game all too often. The ISA Risk BMP is only $15--is it sold in the UK at all? It's still too defect-driven for my tastes, but recognizes adaptive growth, mitigation, and other essential considerations.

 

hama, I hope I'm not one of those 1% blighters. I try to avoid snide comments; it's easy to hear something bad if you are listening for it, you know?

As far as detract from the threads, I hope to add to them, often missing the mark perhaps but no harm in trying. In this thread you might note I am agreeing with you most strongly!

As far as "wind up", not sure you mean finish, or start a clock, or wind YOU up, which seems like coals to newcastle, as they said. it's easy to hear something bad if you are listening for it, you know?

Mitigation or Death.pdf

ISA CEU Basic Tree Risk Assessment complete.pdf

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

This thread is going to be my greatest regret!

[James]

Good morning Treeseer,

 

I think we are mostly in agreement...

 

You end your CEU article by saying,

 

'After reviewing the options, the owners decide which

corrective actions to take and prioritize when to take those

actions. If other abatement or mitigation does not meet the

owners’ needs, then they may decide that removal and

replacement is the best answer for some trees. The ultimate

goals of tree risk assessment include maintaining a secure

environment, maximizing the benefits delivered by the

landscape, keeping maintenance affordable, and demonstrating

the value of arboriculture.'

 

I can't fault that.

 

It seem that so far, to only area of disagreement is the term 'obvious defect'. And even then, I get the impression you only don't like it because of how it is used, rather than what it actually means.

 

Hang on though... I've just noticed it hidden away in there... a recommendation to use QTRA

 

I'm not gonna discuss that system on here (unless someone is happy to show us an example report we can discuss). Every report I've ever seen using that system has a strong whiff of pseudoscience. But it is impossible to have a sensible rational discussion without an example report to go on.

 

But I really had to pull you up on this one...

 

'Removing the dead branches reduces that risk to 1 in 45,000, far

safer than the 1 in 10,000 that is considered by medical

groups to be an acceptable level of risk to the public.'

 

This is incorrect and shows a very serious misunderstanding of the Tolerance of Risk Framework. I can explain this more later if you like - but I've got to dash to a meeting now.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Good morning Treeseer,

 

I think we are mostly in agreement...

 

You end your CEU article by saying,

 

'After reviewing the options, the owners decide which

corrective actions to take and prioritize when to take those

actions. If other abatement or mitigation does not meet the

owners’ needs, then they may decide that removal and

replacement is the best answer for some trees. The ultimate

goals of tree risk assessment include maintaining a secure

environment, maximizing the benefits delivered by the

landscape, keeping maintenance affordable, and demonstrating

the value of arboriculture.'

 

I can't fault that.

 

It seem that so far, to only area of disagreement is the term 'obvious defect'. And even then, I get the impression you only don't like it because of how it is used, rather than what it actually means.

 

Hang on though... I've just noticed it hidden away in there... a recommendation to use QTRA

 

I'm not gonna discuss that system on here (unless someone is happy to show us an example report we can discuss). Every report I've ever seen using that system has a strong whiff of pseudoscience. But it is impossible to have a sensible rational discussion without an example report to go on.

 

But I really had to pull you up on this one...

 

'Removing the dead branches reduces that risk to 1 in 45,000, far

safer than the 1 in 10,000 that is considered by medical

groups to be an acceptable level of risk to the public.'

 

This is incorrect and shows a very serious misunderstanding of the Tolerance of Risk Framework. I can explain this more later if you like - but I've got to dash to a meeting now.

 

Thanks for turning this back into an interesting thread, maybe not such a bad idea after all!

 

Make sure you continue with this theme, I am all ears as they say James