Does this tree need to come down?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Hard to tell from the photo. but from a power line point of view, the clearance isn't sufficient (not statuary clearance), and from a safety point of view they would still be concerned even its out side of there statuary clearance.

 

Again hard to tell, but it may require a shut down on the power line.

 

 

I would interested to see when the tree was last inspected and what has been record for it, hard to say if its unsafe, but given the fact of the large defect, close proximity to the overhead power line, possible high target area in the school, and its not greatest shape I wouldn't have many concerns about removing the tree.

 

No reason why the school and kids cant plant a new tree else?

 

Just thinking along similar lines!

 

Perhaps a letter to the school expressing your concern and asking for a copy of the latest inspection report. It might just jolt them into realising they may be exposing their pupils to risk that they have (probably) not even considered.

 

Wife & I visited 5 primary schools recently to see which one the nipper might attend next year. They all had active outdoor activities and some had "forest school" areas. Naturally I looked quite closely at those areas and enquired about safety inspections. Without exception - blank looks! Worrying really but also ripe for business.

[flatyre]

The trees were inspected four months ago, must have been a Friday. I told the caretaker to contact the electricity board as they might remove the tree free of charge if it proved a hazard to the power lines. The electric board turned up tonight in two vans and a cherry picker (big callout fee, maybe the police should charge call out fees). I apologised for being the one who instigated the issue but they said they would only remove what was in contact with the lines and it would be up to the school to arrange any further work (never happen). They snipped a few twigs with loppers (literally, I didn't hear a saw) and were away in five minutes. The tree is riddled with holes so something is eating it. I might request permission to remove the tree myself free of charge for peace of mind, as no-one else thinks its serious enough to warrant investigation.

[treeseer]

What part of the tree do you think is at risk of failing?

 

The woundwood around that hole may well have compensated for strength loss from the natural (and in some ways beneficial) process of interior decay. "Woodworms" aka larvae, are eating dead rotten material. What evidence is there that the rot is spreading into living tissue, and increasing risk?

Clearing for the wires reduced the load and risk.

Your camera and your analysis seem focused on a hole. Perhaps looking at the whole site, with adjacent trees reducing exposure to wind etc., will calm your concerns.

If not, then reduce the tree's height 15%, and risk 50%.

Fay was right-- focusing on defects, real and imagined, creates risk entrepreneurs.

[Kveldssanger]

focusing on defects, real and imagined, creates risk entrepreneurs.

 

Wow. I love this comment! Going to make a note of this one.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Wow. I love this comment! Going to make a note of this one.

 

 

It has some merit perhaps, in a particular context.

 

And the parallel opinions were apparent in the thread you had about the churchyard tree with partial crown dieback.

 

It struck me from that thread, and possibly similar in this one, how opinions can be polarised depending upon the (real or imagined / knowledge or not so / liability for payment / non liability for payment) eye of the beholder.

 

Is it easier to consider and propose technically achievable arboricultural options, possibly with ongoing maintenance/ management commitments, when you're not spending your own / customers money?

 

Really, "the broader context" (in the real world) has to include how willing the owner is to listen to potentially expensive options and how willing the person exposed to the (real or imagined) risk is to reassurance.

 

"Risk entrepreneur" tends to suggest someone might seek to profit from over egging a potential risk. I'm not saying there aren't folks out there that would employ the old rogue traders disappearing screwdriver trick, but hopefully the tatty transit, padded cheque shirt and dishevelled appearance would give their game away before any meaningful debate about retain / remove even started!

[Kveldssanger]

You raise some very important points, and my thread on the suffering Lawson is indeed a good example of that. I would say it is easier to propose 'sustainable' solutions, or even push one's own ideology, when money is not involved - as in, the one pushing forward ideas doesn't own, nor is responsible for, maintenance of the tree. The third, unassociated party, can almost work only in hypotheticals, as it is unlikely they'll ever be the one looking after the tree they're proposing management for (and nor will they be impacted by it if it does fail).

 

NTSG had it penned well in Common Sense Risk Management of Trees, I think - the perception of danger is perhaps, more often than not, greater than the actual level of danger. But they do state that this should not be ignored, as perception of fear can of course impact upon peoples' quality of life.

 

Controversial, but would you not agree that some arborists are risk entrepreneurs - both professionally-trained and not? When money is involved, it may, at times, tend to trump ideology.

[flatyre]

very good points being made, it is common place amongst many professions to exaggerate issues to instil a sense of fear which can be profited from. I think some mechanics are masters of this tactic. I'm sure many arborists have used the same trick to certain extents, but not necessarily for their own benefits. I'm sure many trees get felled while still in good health, which is wrong, but what about a tree showing signs of disease, old age, etc. it may have some life left in it but no-one can tell exactly when it will come down. Where do you draw the line between fear entrepreneurs and cautious advice.

I dropped a letter into a would be customer yesterday, huge pine tree overhanging a notorious nasty little corner. A large section of crown had broken off and was caught up in the upper branches. The main limb of it was about a foot thick, completely dead just hanging there waiting for the next gale to bring it down onto the road. In the letter I offered to remove the limb for a fee as it may pose a threat to the passing traffic. Now some will call me a fear entrepreneur, but surely as skilled professionals with more experience in these situations than the general public, is it not our obligation to notify them of potential dangers and offer our services?

[Kveldssanger]

In your example there is a very evident risk, given the tree has actually failed in the crown. In this example on the front page, as someone pointed out there is distinct ribbing - this may suggest the tree has responded to the decay, and it's clearly an old wound. Granted, there is some serious decay of that exposed section at the very least, its growth form isn't ideal, and the decay is at a point in the stem where failure will usually occur if the stem were to fail (at around 1.5-2m up). Because of the tree's setting, likely future management (utility lines), and so on, its retention is possible with some management - I suppose it could be argued entire removal is potentially heavy-handed without doing some further tests on the structure (resistograph) to ascertain whether that decay patch really is extensive in vertical and radial arrangement.

 

In short, the pine's condition was outwardly suggestive of a definite major hazard. In the case of the first post, it's outwardly suggestive of a degree of dysfunction, but not necessarily suggestive of definite major hazard.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

You raise some very important points, and my thread on the suffering Lawson is indeed a good example of that. I would say it is easier to propose 'sustainable' solutions, or even push one's own ideology, when money is not involved - as in, the one pushing forward ideas doesn't own, nor is responsible for, maintenance of the tree. The third, unassociated party, can almost work only in hypotheticals, as it is unlikely they'll ever be the one looking after the tree they're proposing management for (and nor will they be impacted by it if it does fail).

 

 

 

NTSG had it penned well in Common Sense Risk Management of Trees, I think - the perception of danger is perhaps, more often than not, greater than the actual level of danger. But they do state that this should not be ignored, as perception of fear can of course impact upon peoples' quality of life.

 

 

 

Controversial, but would you not agree that some arborists are risk entrepreneurs - both professionally-trained and not? When money is involved, it may, at times, tend to trump ideology.

 

 

I like the NTSG guidance and very often paste the link into quotes so that potential customers can take a more informed decision. It's compact, gives scenario based examples, is easily digestible and is suitable for home and estate owners. All round a good resource I think.

 

I'm not sure it's that controversial to say some may over egg or not really comprehend the reality of risk but I'd think it more common that home owners want solutions rather than option. A fine balance.

[treeseer]

I was just paraphrasing Neville, so thanks for not killing the messenger. But I absolutely agree.

 

In my work it's ALWAYS someone else's money, and (mostly) someone else's liability. not sure what's being said there. ?

I do accept some transfer of liability when I provide information and list management options, which tell people what they CAN do with their tree.

I accept a lot more liability if I decide to assign myself to make recommendations. Recommendations tell people what you think they SHOULD do. It's not just semantic....

Of course owners want definite solutions, and firmly stated opinions from us. They want to transfer as much liability to us as they can. But we should think carefully before taking on that liability.

Boiling down decisions into keep it or kill it is a false dichotomy, known as a fool's choice.

 

Given the uncertainty surrounding supplemental support, arborists need to inspect trees more closely before making any conclusions or suggesting management options. There is much we can learn from the tree’s own natural support system, before we impose any treatments. “Form determines dynamic response, so it’s time to tune into tree architecture.” Ken James told the group. “Much of the scientific data available is based on forest trees, but much of it is not applicable to exposed urban trees. The answer is predetermined by the tree.” As much as James knows about tree biomechanics, he does not make recommendations to his clients when consulting about trees. “I just report information to the client” he said. “I let them figure out what to do with it.”