Frimsley

OK, here's me a couple of days ago. My team, the Tashtastic Tree Guys, has a bit of competition on for the coveted title of Mr Tashtastic Tree Guy 2012 and a great trophy carved from oak. You can vote for your favourite here

And here's the trophy. Get growing those mos guys...

Well if anyone wants to join the Tashtastic Tree Guys you'd be very welcome. Bit of a slow start on building the team this year for some reason. But we have a fantastic prize available for the best tash in the team - a wonderful solid oak carved tash trophy made from a piece of New Forest oak. So head on over and sign up: Tashtastic Tree Guys By the way, I noticed the other day Sainsbury's have Movember branded Spitfire ale on special a £1 a 500ml bottle. Well worth it, but it would be rude to take advantage without taking part in Movember wouldn't it?

Some not bad tashes there guys. Here's my effort: It came off last night in the pub - they had a barber with cut throat razor in to mark the end of Movember. The Tashtastic Tree Guy's team raised over £1,000 between the ten of us. Next step is to pick a Mr Tashtastic Tree Guy 2011. In X-Factor tradition, this is being done by a public vote, which you're welcome to join in on. Check out Judgement day: the Tashtastic Tree Guys for details.

Just been blogging a bit about my mo-tivation What’s that on your lip? Note to self

There's a "Tashtastic Tree Guys" team, so far made up of UKTC members, but any Arbtalk folk would be more than welcome to join. Check out my Mo Space Prostate cancer is a subject that is thankfully not as close to my heart as it used to be, in that until September is was about 20cm below my heart and is now sliced up in a path lab in Birmingham somewhere. I was one of the lucky ones and caught it early, but a man dies of prostate cancer every hour in the UK. How it pans out is largely down to how early you catch it, which is bad news given the blokeish tendency to ignore health issues and pretend they're not happening. Especially if they're to do with your boy bits. So if you don't join in or donate, at least take this seriously. Find out what to look for. Don't ignore it. Think it's just an old man's disease? I was 47 at diagnosis.

Well, it's a way from the main point of the thread a bit, but that's worth an answer. Timber prices saw a sharp rise prior to the recession, partly as a result of China's hunger for timber. But in the last year they have again fallen. As an example, the average price received by the Forest Commission for the sale of standing timber in England was £11.71/m3 in 2006/7, £16.35 in 2007/8 and £12.37 in 2008/9. Even looking at a short period such as the last three years, it is far from clear that prices are "only heading in one direction". Prices are volatile, and over the economic life of a woodland it's anybody's guess. Producing timber is still, and hopefully always will be, an important part of forest management. Wood as a fuel is also helping to keep that on the agenda. What I said was that forestry is no longer just about timber. It is about amenity, recreation, biodiversity, water quality, erosion and much more. The FC are having to diversify their interest and their skills. Look at the current grant offerings - they are focused on encouraging other priorities: access, woodland birds, restoration of PAWS.

Yes. If the soil is going to recover it's going to recover. It doesn't really matter how fast it recovers. All you do by recommending phased removal is prolong the home owner's agony.

A clear career structure, a single professional body with a clear entry scheme comparable to other 'professions'. And a lot of legislative clout these days. The problem is not just for arbs. The entire 'green' industry is afflicted. I need to find 'critical friends' to assist in developing a Green Infrastructure policy. Finding ecologists is easy. But GI is 'multifunctional'. Try finding a parks or recreation professional - they're just not sufficiently organised to be able to identify their existance. I suspect arbs are seen the same way from outside. Comments about lack of clear leadership and direction are certainly well founded. A few other things have struck me in this thread. What have the FC got to gain from us? Well a lot actually. Their very existence. And they know it. Forestry purely for the sake of producing timber is no longer. The FC have diversified their focus considerably in recent years to take in recreation and social forestry. The Strategy for England's Trees, Woods and Forests and its delivery plan give them a clear role in urban forestry and they are starting to move more into this area, particularly in London. The FC are showing some willingness and inclination to engage with arbs. Arbs are failing to engage with the FC, and this is a huge mistake. The FC have the remit, but they don't really have the expertise - they need arb input. This is probably more relevant to LA arbs and the professional / trade associations than it is to individual contractors, but unless arbs engage they will loose even the little influence they currently have. A big driver is the climate change agenda, and what it's driving is an increasing understanding of the importance of 'green infrastructure'. Clearly trees are a hugely important part of the GI, but much GI development is currently led by ecologists and landscape architects. We are missing a trick here. The FC, incidentally, is not a professional body, it is government agency. The main 'professional' bodies in arb in the UK are the AA and the ICF. To Tony's original questions: Sometimes. We are important, but we also one part of a much bigger picture, and too few arbs see that. No. Which is why arb input into the bigger picture is so important. However, I do suspect that a lot of arbs tend to over manage trees. That's the really tricky one. Partly professional bitching. They're wood farmers, what have they got to do with us? But more, I suspect, to do with leadership. Initial engagement needs to come from so called industry leaders, whoever they are. And that is slow. Also, the FC are really feeling their way into urban forestry. They don't really know where to go or who to ask, so the way in for us isn't clear. It has to happen, and it isn't happening properly yet. How to join that up is a really big question.

There seem to be slightly different issues coming up here. Pruning the crown is unlikely to cause roots to dieback - the tree has invested energy in creating those roots, why would it kill them off now? But it probably will reduce the rate of growth of roots - there is no need to build up such an extensive network of roots for a smaller crown and there are fewer sugars available for the job because of less photosynthesis. The OCA paper is not about root growth, it's about moisture use. A tree can have a lot of roots and still not use much water. The two are not directly related, although it would be reasonable to assume a tree with few roots isn't going to be able to use much water. I'm not clear what the context of the question is...

I like the weldmesh and EML suggestions. Chicken wire breaks too easily and then the sharp edges become a hazard themselves. We've used compounds mixed with sand in the past. Not sure about PVA - I don't think it's waterproof. A problem with an already slippery, 10 year old bridge is getting the surface clean enough for the compounds to stick to in a way that is going to last. I think weldmesh would be a lot simpler. A PROW is not generally owned by, or even maintained by the Highways Authority. Unless it's adopted as a highway maintained at public expense it is down to the land owner. As for liability, if you've spotted the problem and don't do anything, you're in trouble. If you take reasonable, practical steps to minimise the risk, you're clear. You don't have to make everything safe - just do what is reasonable and practical to keep risk down. I often find myself advising people to keep risk in perspective and suggesting that they may be over stating it. In this area though, perhaps not. A large landowner I'm particularly familiar with has had a number of accidents leading to claims in the past few years - quite a normal situation for a large land owner. Interestingly though, all of them have involved falls on slippery wooden surfaces. So this is a real risk that does need addressing.

Do you really want Google ads for potential competitors on your front page? Cost of a website - how long's a piece of string? Sometimes you get what you pay for. Sometimes you pay through the nose for complete rubbish. If you really want a site to work for you, don't skimp on it. Don't try and do it yourself, or get the lad next door to do it. A designer friend of mine recently paraphrased a famous quote about the punk era, saying "dreamweaver has given everybody the opportunity to build their own website. And most of them shouldn't have" And don't forget that getting the site up is only the first part of the journey. Getting traffic to it is much harder. FWIW, I don't think £350 is at all expensive for a basic brochure site.

It's the last few days of the Arboricultural Association's consultation on the future of the Approved Contractor Scheme. Simple web questionnaire that doesn't take too long to fill out - your chance to air your views on the scheme. Check out the AA Approved Contractor Consultation

For tree and forestry related books generally, Treesource is always a good place to start. I'm not sure they would be able to get you out of print stuff, but it's worth giving them a ring and asking. Jo is very helpful and may be able to suggest where to go if she can't get it. Or just try Amazon. It's a specialist area - you're unlikely to find new books at below the list price the FC give. Quite a lot of their stuff is available as a PDF for free nowadays though.

I spent a while looking for a saw on ebay a few years ago. I wasn't after anything special, just something to keep on top of my firewood with. Most of the things I looked at ended up going for more than you'd pay new - quite crazy prices clearly being bought by people who hadn't done their homework. Ended up buying a new bottom of the range Stihl from the farmers supply place up the road. There's so much that can go wrong with a saw, and so many idiots using them without a clue I don't think it's worth it unless you get a real bargain, or get a buzz out making a piece of junk work again.

Info on the Practioners Guide at http://www.qtra.co.uk/cms/index.php?section=46.'>http://www.qtra.co.uk/cms/index.php?section=46. It's a useful recap of VTA, how decay spreads and the use of a hammer for decay mapping. QTRA training is much more about risk and thinks at least as much about the target as the tree. Most of the rest of http://www.qtra.co.uk is about QTRA. Yes.

I think you need to step back a bit and take the long view here. Obviously woodland owners are going to want an income, and that is precisely what this kind of project is intended to enable. But it can't be done over night. The classic problem is no one will install a bio mass boiler if there are no chips to be had. And no one will invest in processing chip if there isn't yet a market to sell the chip into. Projects such as this are intended to kick start the process and build both the market and the processing infrastructure. Other less ambitious projects have seen some considerable success - the supply chain is now well on its way in the Welsh Marches and there have been some recent developments spurring from this in Warwickshire, for example. Developing the wood fuel market is a key part of the Forestry Commission's current strategy, so you can expect to see further projects of this kind. Irrespective of source, energy prices follow each other. An increase in the price of oil results in an increase in the price of wind generated electricity. And an increase in the price of wood fuel. The current market trends are pushing up the value of poor quality roundwood, particularly where there is local wood fuel processing available. Wood fuel processors around here currently significantly more than Kronospan, and without the cost of transport to Wrexham. This is starting to make it look like woodland management for timber production is economically viable once more. Particularly when combined with the fact that the huge Chinese demand for saw log quality timber has resulted in significant increases in timber prices over the last couple of years.

If you're talking chainsaw use on the ground then gloves conforming to EN 381-7 are required by AFAG 301. If you're going to ignore this advice, on which the HSE would base any assessment of whether you have taken reasonable steps to ensure your safety, you've better have a fully documented and thorough risk assessment to explain why. And that RA will need to look at both the risk of cutting your hand and the risk of HAVS. In other situations things are different. Climbing in chainsaw gloves IME is near impossible because you just can't handle the karabiners. But thin sticky grip things I always found great. If you're using swung tools (axe, long arm slasher, bill hook) I would say gloves are not safe as they impair your grip. Sticky grip style gloves you might get away with. Beyond the recommendations of AFAG 301 for saw use, it's going to come down to your risk assessment.

Heartwoods have just relaunched their business directory, which lists forestry, trees and wood product related businesses in the West Midlands. If you're in the West Midlands and not listed, it's worth adding yourself. And if you're after a subby for some area of work you don't cover, it's worth checking it out.

Actually, it doesn't. Not in those terms anyway. The relevant part of the act (s 198 (6) (a) if you're really interested) states that a TPO does not prevent Note that that is dead trees, not dead wood within a tree. The question of dead wood is dealt with by government guidance, in the form of a statement within the "Blue Book" But remember that this is only guidance, not the law. The SoS can, and in my view should, change their view on this. As you rightly say, this interpretation of the exemption severely weakens the power of a TPO to protect veterans. This is particularly ridiculous in the light of more recent guidance (circular 06/05) which has suggested that nature conservation value is a valid reason for making a TPO. Hardly a lot of point if the TPO is then powerless to stop the most important habitat within the tree being removed.

It'll get quicker! Looks fantastic. I used to erect steel domes regularly and they were hideous. The bruises I've got as steel bars swing down and slam your shins when you're walking a layer up...

By way of a bit of fun and mutual promotion I have added a new feature to the tree-care.info site. Top Tree Sites is a listing of links to tree related sites, but with a difference. Top Tree Sites will automatically rank sites according to how many visitors they receive. To get your site listed just head over to the sign up page and join up. As long as your site is to do with trees or tree care it will be approved shortly and you'll receive an email containing a snippet of code you will need to paste into your site somewhere in order to get started. The code will display a small button with your current rank on. There are a number of different button styles available depending on how much you want to shout about your rank; even a 1px X 1px transparent image for the shy If you feel there isn't a category to fit your site let me know and I'll look at setting one up. Similarly, if there is no button that fits in with the style of your site, drop me a line, preferably with a suggested alternative button, and I can look at adding it. So what are you waiting for? Get over to Top Tree Sites and get yourself a free link! It'll make Arbtalk look better too - being ranked number 1 isn't so impressive when it's out of two

It's work time. It's not time you can charge for - as in you don't present Mrs Miggins with an invoice for dismantling her dodgy oak and add a couple of days leave and three hours spent updating your website at the bottom of it. Which is why you exclude it. The price you charge for each hour you charge for has to have an element built in to cover the cost of the hours you can't charge for. Say you know you need £2000 a week to cover all. You aim to work 40 hours a week. This doesn't mean your hourly charge is £50. 10 hours a week may be spent on admin or servicing or whatever that you can't specifically charge out. So you divide by 30, not 40, and charge out at £66.67 per hour.

Work out your total annual costs, including wages, NI, employers liability and public indemnity insurance, postage, advertising, stationary, PPE, fuel, depreciation on capital equipment, servicing equipment, interest on loans, training courses etc etc etc. Add in a percentage for profit, as opposed to wages. Wages is what you take out and spend on beer. Profit is what you invest back into the business. Work out how much time in a year you can actually charge for. That's excluding holiday, being sick, negotiating with that irritating sales man from Yellow Pages, posting stuff here, doing your accounts, going on training courses, chasing bad debtors, doing your own machinery servicing, sitting around waiting for the AA to turn up and start you're knackered van etc. Divide one by t'other. If you've done it right you'll probably be shocked by the answer

A few late thoughts... If you have the time and you really have the skills, build your own site. It's fun if you like that sort of thing. But it probably won't save you money if you start costing your time in. But more importantly, be honest with yourself about your skills. Building a website requires a combination of graphic design, technical and marketing skills. This is not a personal blog, not a bit of fun, it's the public face of your business. And to be honest, there are an awful lot of sites out there that look homemade and nasty. And I don't exclude my own from that - I've probably got a more technical background than most here; I write clean, valid code, but I'm no designer. I host sites, I do functional development of sites, but if a client wants design that gets subbed out to a graphic designer. Joomla: Well, content management systems in general first. I'm a big fan. If you need a simple brochure site that you are never going to change, probably overkill. But changing content on your website should be something you routinely do, and using a CMS makes it a lot easier. It will help keep a consistent design throughout your site, it will allow you to change content without you having to learn HTML/XHTML/CSS etc (your an arborist - not a programmer - concentrate on what you're good at). Joomla is not the only CMS about. Drupal and Xoops are also popular. Personally, I tend to use Exponent. They all work. They can all be customised to give a particular look to your site. So my recommendation - get a designer to design the basic concept for the site. Get a programmer to port the design to a decent CMS. Then enter the content and do the ongoing maintenance yourself.