should it stay or should it go??

[Wood wasp]

Lots of discussion on *I think* there is decay - but where are the actual assessments of sail area of the canopy, strength loss calculations and consideration of localised topography? I would prescribe all the above before simply saying fell and replant. Yes, I do look to retention as the first option and work from there.

 

From what I have read, there appears to be far too much reliance on guesswork or assumptions before any objective thought of how to manage this in my opinion.

 

 

For goodness sake get a grip man

[10 Bears]

By the time you work out the costs of assessing canopies, calculations of localized topography etc, you could have felled it, run it through the chipper, ground and replanted.

Plus as DH said the locations wrong.

 

Well, no.

 

Any good surveyor/consultant would be able to do this whilst at the tree and take the key information away with them straight away. If you can fell/chip etc. in a matter of 5-10 minutes max I would be very surprised, as that is all this would take to assess in the field.

 

There is a big difference in what people think is hazardous, compared to what actually constitutes a hazard. How could you differentiate without making some efforts to find out? Unfortunately though, there are far too many in this industry who just want to fell trees and run so they get a pay day and are not inclined to take an objective view on the situation as this would affect their turnover. It appears that lot of arborists operate on the basis of kicking the tyres a bit, sucking their teeth and saying, 'It'll cost ya!'

 

Either way you look at it, guessing what is the best thing to do is unprofessional at best, and massively irresponsible at worst. Capturing key data to make an informed decision is at the very least, the most defensible way to tackle potential hazard issues like this.

 

I wouldn't simply rely on 'someone else said...' as a method for my decision making, I would rely on my assessment of the facts. As for the next comment and getting a grip - clearly, I already have.

[tree79]

Well, no.

 

Any good surveyor/consultant would be able to do this whilst at the tree and take the key information away with them straight away. If you can fell/chip etc. in a matter of 5-10 minutes max I would be very surprised, as that is all this would take to assess in the field.

 

There is a big difference in what people think is hazardous, compared to what actually constitutes a hazard. How could you differentiate without making some efforts to find out? Unfortunately though, there are far too many in this industry who just want to fell trees and run so they get a pay day and are not inclined to take an objective view on the situation as this would affect their turnover. It appears that lot of arborists operate on the basis of kicking the tyres a bit, sucking their teeth and saying, 'It'll cost ya!'

 

Either way you look at it, guessing what is the best thing to do is unprofessional at best, and massively irresponsible at worst. Capturing key data to make an informed decision is at the very least, the most defensible way to tackle potential hazard issues like this.

 

I wouldn't simply rely on 'someone else said...' as a method for my decision making, I would rely on my assessment of the facts. As for the next comment and getting a grip - clearly, I already have.

 

 

you are quiet right. The LA I work for only likes to take trees out a last resort, but we have to take in other factors, like the location and situation of the tree, the value of the tree and the cost of regular inspection and pollarding.

To some degree they want us to bear in mind public relations as well.

The LA has limited resource and budget so, even though its surveyed as a removal, tree is risk rated which will related to a time scale so it may not disappear for another 6 months at least.

It may sound a strange way but its how they require us to work.

[tree-fancier123]

Well, no.

 

Any good surveyor/consultant would be able to do this whilst at the tree and take the key information away with them straight away. If you can fell/chip etc. in a matter of 5-10 minutes max I would be very surprised, as that is all this would take to assess in the field.

 

 

Even the best tree consultant in the country won't know it all, they may have read 2000 tree books, and every journal article for the last 30 years, but just processing information won't make anyone a master of nature.

It seems ridiculous to me that anyone can have a quick ten minutes on site and suss it out for definite.

I remember reading about the girl who was killed by 'summer branch drop' at Kew and thinking if Kew can't make trees completely safe who can?

Edited March 26, 2015 by David Humphries
Please watch your language

[Gary Prentice]

I thought it was accepted that we can't make trees safe. But we can manage risk.

[Wood wasp]

I just see a tree which pictures show is too near the road and has grown over the kerb, as a result it's now encroaching onto the road and has suffered repeated vehicle impacts resulting in damage from ground level to maybe 10 feet.

 

Do you really need to do assessments to realise that the tree is going to continue to suffer from impacts unless either the road layout is changed or the tree is removed?

 

10 Bears - you may (or may not) know your stuff but it was really the condescending tone of your post which I was alluding to.

[Billhook]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLQJVKP3YlM[/ame]

[NFG]

Hi

 

Theres water running through the tree from the right hand top pic exiting at the bottom pic.

 

The rot is probably worse than what you can see.

 

From what Ive seen with similar trees I would definitely fell & re-plant

 

 

N

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLQJVKP3YlM

 

 

Can't beat a bit of Clash!

[Gray git]

It would be interesting to see some pictures of the extent of the decay during the autopsy if it go's ahead.