Typical US Risk Report--compare w/UK?

[treeseer]

Follow the link to the full report, if you have a minute. I'm wondering how this compares to 1. typical UK reports and 2. the way that UK arborists think that tree risk should be assessed.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Steve Bullman

[easy-lift guy]

I can not comment on a risk report generated from the UK, however I suspect that the link posted seems pretty SOP for the Arborculturel industry here stateside. I am also familiar with this part of the country and knowing the population and traffic patterns.

I can think of several reasons why it has taken so long to generate, none of which have anything to do with this industry.

easy-lift guy

[Paul Barton]

This is a hard post to respond to Treeseer, because:

 

- in all honesty I am not sure what a 'typical' UK report is like (I've read plenty of good and plenty of not so good) and I don't know if the report you have posted is typical of a US report.

 

- I would also feel uncomfortable critiquing another persons report without their knowledge (particularly on a public forum!). Are you Ed Milhaus? If you want a UK perspective on one of your reports then fair enough....post one up for us.

[easy-lift guy]

Paul, I don't think Treeseer is wanting the flame thrower on deck. He is wanting a comparison to gain knowledge, as am I.

easy-lift guy

[Paul Barton]

I would add this though: in my experience trees showing decay symptoms located next to a highway are removed pretty quickly (provided they are picked up in the first place). I believe this is the case for 2 reasons:

- this is not the location in which to try and retain decaying trees due to the high risk zone

- typically local authorities managing street trees are managing a very large population of trees - the area I survey in has more than 90,000 street trees. Budget constraints mean that felling and replanting are normally preferred over extensive detailed surveys and pruning for management.

 

I am not saying these points are right or wrong but I do see the rationale.

[treeseer]

I would add this though: in my experience trees showing decay symptoms located next to a highway are removed pretty quickly (provided they are picked up in the first place). I believe this is the case for 2 reasons:

- this is not the location in which to try and retain decaying trees due to the high risk zone

- typically local authorities managing street trees are managing a very large population of trees - the area I survey in has more than 90,000 street trees. Budget constraints mean that felling and replanting are normally preferred over extensive detailed surveys and pruning for management.

 

I am not saying these points are right or wrong but I do see the rationale.

 

Paul, good points and re propriety yes I said "This is not an uncommon methodology and my purpose is not to flame or praise its author. It's the method and criteria I am wondering about." but somehow it did not make the post. If the moderator could pull the attachment, i will try to put up an anonymised version. My bad.

 

re putting up my own reports, I already have, several.

 

re budget constraints leading to felling, I wonder how cost/benefit was calculated. I've seen pruning inserted as an annual item, when 5-10 years would have worked. And the most confounding thing: the value of the tree itself omitted from the equation.

[Steve Bullman]

let me know when you have the new report Guy and i'll insert it into the original post.

 

Well spotted Paul

[treeseer]

What astoundingly quick service! Thanks Steve; this place has class.

[alliaria]

Where are the reports, or am I missing something......as always.

[Steve Bullman]

read up a couple of posts