benedmonds

My labrador cross

I've said it before IMO the best vehicle for general domestic arb work is two 3.5 tonners. A single 3.5 tonner is too small most days, but there are lighter just as profitable days when a small truck is fine. I don't know how much more it costs to run a 7.5 tonner but I bet it's not much less than the two transits. Loads of other advantages of having two trucks, which I won't repeat.. Obviously 4wd is sometimes necessary but we've got that covered with a tractor and the Pinin.

I have had a powerstation ringing me offering £7 a ton. I'll see if I can find the number.

Does anyone have any information on different foundation designs. Or experience using piles or radial strip footings? How would you specify in a Method Statement? Would you need to have an engineer to have designed the size of piles? Would you then specify hand digging..? So many questions... Is there a good source of information anywhere which can show some of the solutions to construction in an RPA? I've done the BS5837 course at treescapes and I'm happy now writing a report where the buildings are not within the RPA but in the real world RPA's can be surfaced and using the correct design can be built over where can I find out about these other options?[/b

From the QTRA newsletter (which you qtra guys presumably get..) Goode v City of Burnside (2007) SAERDC4 (14 February 2007) A QTRA user who was concerned about the implications of this judgment has asked if we could make it available for public download on our website, which we have done and it can now be found on the downloads section of the website. Additionally, the following is an extract from a paper presented to the 2007 TreeNet annual symposium and seeks to illustrate the misinterpretation of QTRA that took place in this hearing. In the Australian case of Goode v City of Burnside [2007], the court considered an appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse permission for the removal of two River Red Gum trees (Eucalyptus camaldulensis sub sp. camaldulensis). Two issues were considered. 1) The risk from failure of the trees, or part thereof, 2) damage to the tree owner’s dwelling from root activity. The Judgment of Commissioner Hodgson makes various references to QTRA and its application by the Council’s arboriculturist Mr. Lodge. There are two important issues relating to QTRA that are raised in the judgement and there appears to be misunderstanding by the Commissioner of both the inputs and outputs of the QTRA method. Firstly, the Commissioner, at paragraph 18 of the judgment, states “In response to questions from the Court, Mr Lodge acknowledged that there was a fair measure of subjectivity entailed in the assignment of scores to the three criteria under this method (Matheny and Clark 1994). That being the case, I have little confidence in the rating arrived at as an accurate reflection of the risk associated with the subject trees.” At paragraph 25, the Commissioner says “It seems to me that the Ellison methodology suffers from the same defect as the Hazard Rating system, namely, that it requires a fair measure of subjectivity in determining the probability of failure and the size of branch most likely to fail, these in turn having a significant effect on impact potential”. The Commissioner proceeds at paragraph 27 to suggest, without any particular qualification, that he finds the evidence of Mr. Nicolle, expert for the Appellant, more persuasive. It is apparent from the Commissioner’s concerns over the subjective judgement required in the assessment of tree-failure risk, that he does not fully understand the underlying concepts. In the context of the Commissioner’s comments on this matter, the term ‘subjective’ is broadly synonymous with ‘judgement’ or ‘a person’s views’ (Concise Oxford English Dictionary 2007). It is not and has never been claimed that QTRA is wholly objective and it is clear that a risk assessment cannot be so. As with any method of assessing tree safety, the judgement of the assessor based upon his knowledge and experience is required whether the risk assessment is an overview of a large tree population or a detailed assessment of an individual tree and its situation. The evidence of Mr Nicolle on the matter of potential for branch failure was no less subjective than that of Mr Lodge who had in fact limited the subjective input to his assessment by applying the structure of the QTRA method. Secondly, the Commissioner states at paragraph 24 of the judgment “Mr Nicolle’s evidence was that the limbs most likely to fail in Tree 1 were 300mm or more in diameter. If that diameter were substituted for the 100mm diameter used in Mr Lodge’s calculation of risk of harm, with no other change, the risk would, on my calculations, become 1/592, clearly unacceptable against the criteria underlying Mr Lodge’s calculations. Were the probability of failure reduced to a level consistent with Mr Lodge’s survey of failure in this species, the risk of harm, based on the Ellison methodology, would be, on my calculations, 1/5,920, again greater than the posited acceptable level of risk of 1/10,000”. What the Commissioner did not consider is that large branches are inherently more stable than small branches and the 300mm diameter branch exhibiting no signs of significant defect would have a far lower likelihood of failure than the 100mm diameter branch and that this reduction in the ‘Probability of Failure‘ component of the QTRA would reduce the risk of harm in both cases to below the proposed acceptable threshold. Thirdly, At paragraph 21, the Commissioner cites the QTRA journal paper thus. “Having read that paper and carefully considered Mr Lodge’s evidence, I have significant reservations about the utility of the Quantified Tree Risk Assessment System in providing a reliable measure of the risk represented by a particular tree or trees. The precise nature of the way in which "Risk of Harm" is expressed suggests a level of accuracy and reliability not borne out by a close examination of the inputs to the calculation of that risk.” Here the Commissioner makes a reasoned observation and indeed is correct in that expressing the QTRA ‘Risk of Harm’ output to as many as four significant figures QTRA outputs infer a level of precision that does not exist. This is not a problem with the utility of the QTRA method, because inputs can involve precision, but with the way in which outputs are expressed. The QTRA system benefits from considerable input and feedback from licensed users through an internet discussion forum on which the topic of precision has been discussed. At the next revision the significant figures used in QTRA outputs will be reduced. Users of the Quantified Tree Risk Assessment system are trained in application of the system and should possess the skills to apply the method to the assessment of tree-failure risk. Providing evidence on the underlying principles of QTRA requires a greater level of understanding and currently few people have that in depth understanding of the subject. For the future, Quantified Tree Risk Assessment Limited will provide a review service and will compile a register of individuals who have attained sufficient understanding of the system to provide confidential review and guidance to other users.

Who has done the course and has an opinion? If you haven't done the course your opinion is valued (but less so...)

I think you've got to get them done by a big expensive machine. You can't just use an angle grinder... I might be wrong. We go to a local dealer it's not expensive. I think saturn blades sharpen too but you have to add postage.

Do what he wants, it's only a leylandii. It will survive 50% off the top probably more. It might look stupid but the alternative is to take it out and plant something else. If he won't go for that think of it as a big hedge. No need for spikes.

Do any of you process and bag logs through the summer. We've a big pile of wood and not a lot of work.. If we spit it and bag it, as long as it's kept dryish it shouldn't be a problem should it?

If I could get the price this guy wants for his wood I'd be happy.. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/firewood-logs-solid-fuel-log-splitter-timber-wood_W0QQitemZ140235841437QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item140235841437&_trkparms=72%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C65%3A12&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

I don't normally take any notice of this type of email but you guys are whinging on about the cost of fuel so thought you might be interested.. See what you think and pass it on if you agree with it We are hitting £108.9 a litre in some areas now, soon we will be faced with paying £1.10 a ltr. Philip Hollsworth offered this good idea: This makes MUCH MORE SENSE than the 'don't buy petrol on a certain day campaign that was going around last April or May! The oil companies just laughed at that because they knew we wouldn't continue to hurt ourselves by refusing to buy petrol. It was more of an inconvenience to us than it was a problem for them. BUT,whoever thought of this idea, has come up with a plan that can really work. Please read it and join in! Now that the oil companies and the OPEC nations have conditioned us to think that the cost of a litre is CHEAP, we need to take aggressive action to teach them that BUYERS control the market place not sellers. With the price of petrol going up more each day, we consumers need to take action. The only way we are going to see the price of petrol come down is if we hit someone in the pocket by not purchasing their Petrol! And we can do that WITHOUT hurting ourselves. Here's the idea: For the rest of this year DON'T purchase ANY petrol from the two biggest oil companies (which now are one), ESSO and BP. If they are not selling any petrol, they will be inclined to reduce their prices. If they reduce their prices, the other companies will have to follow suit. But to have an impact we need to reach literally millions of Esso and BP petrol buyers.It's really simple to do!! Now, don't wimp out at this point... keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!! I am sending this note to a lot of people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers! If those three million get excited and pass this on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If it goes one level further, you guessed it... .. THREE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE!!! Again, all You have to do is send this to 10 people. That's all.(and not buy at ESSO/BP) How long would all that take? If each of us sends this email out to ten more people within one day of receipt, all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted within the next 8days!!! Acting together we can make a difference . If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on. PLEASE HOLD OUT UNTIL THEY LOWER THEIR PRICES TO THE 69p a LITRE RANGE It's easy to make this happen. Just forward this email, and buy your petrol at Shell, Asda,Tesco, Sainsburys, Morrisons Jet etc. i.e. boycott BP and Esso

In the above case there is a recognisable defect, so I guess it is more likely to work. I guess I'm off thread a bit thinking about healthy trees with no defects that will cause damage if they fail..

It makes sense just not sure my local council would see it that way as they just add a caveat (as I do on my reports and I'm sure you do on your reports)such as: "although mechanical failure in trees is often attributable to recognisable defects, a sound specimen can fail in exceptionally adverse conditions."

Bob - Give the tree a chance saying two years is going to scare the owner. I don't think you can condem such a tree without a good poke around. As Chris says there is plenty of reactive growth around the base and the crown looks reasonable. Also there are no signs of bulges or fibre buckling. IMO A significant oak like that should be given every chance. Get someone who knows what theyre doing to have a good look. You would hope that the tree officer who has stuck the TPO on it knows a bit about trees and has had a good poke and tap with his/her mallet.. They have seen the tree and didn't think it a danger. That must be a first me backing a TO....

Chris, surely you'll never get a council to send a letter accepting responsibility. I presume that’s kind of the point but have you had much success with this approach? I tried this tack with a local council with some trees leaning over some buildings but they haven't budged. The tree owners insurers are also writing to the council. The trees are OK, a little exposed since we removed two big neighbouring trees and one fell over. The neighbours are just scared cause if they go it will cause a lot of damage. The case has just been through the laborious appeal process and we're waiting on the report but the council representative just did the old any tree can fail line. It would be difficult to see the the council making a U turn and letting us take them down if the appeal is up held.

ChCh is like little England. It was a swamp till a few years ago and many of the trees are from the UK. They've lots of big elms in one part. There are also some BIG eucs, and lots of pin oak.. Or maybe I just spent lots of time thinning crappy pin oaks.. The Kauri trees are all on the North Island I think, worth a visit! As are the southern beech forests. The Southern Alps are a couple of hours drive but don't expect the conditions to be like Europe or the States. It's much, much less developed. Propper big pointy mountains but no bars etc.. Sumner is on the edge of ChCh. Head for there. You can surf a bit, paraglide often and the hills from an old volcano give the place some aspect. Loads of Britts end up there. Be prepared to stay, I don't know why I came back!

The way my local council tenders work you can expect shoddy jobs. Many a job I've put a price in and not got, later I've passed and been shocked at how pap the work was. It really irratates me that we miss out on work as we price to do a proper job and someone else prices lower but only does 1/2 the job. I mentioned it to the tree officer and she said that street trees just have to be done as cheaply as possible and so the quality isn't an issue.

Is it not an old graft?

I worked in CHCH, lived in Sumner. Great, loved it wish I was still there! The sea, easy access to mountains, a great system of back country huts, nice climate. Good cheese! Bad pubs, women are ... butch (take your own), lack of history anything over 50 years old is a historic monument! People are a bit into bigging up NZ but there OK. If you like the outdoor life it's the best. If you like cities and clubbing and shopping its not. A bit like the UK as it was 50 years ago. I didn't have much tree work experience at the time, less then a year and a three month short course, but found two tree jobs. Left the first after a couple of weeks as boss was a ****, but spent best part of a year with City Care a sold off council firm. They use MEWPS lots but still require climbers. Had a few Brits passing working on holiday visas when I was there. The climbing kit was basic, only type A trousers and regular steel toecaps so take your own kit..

My niece and nephew are witchcraft as I call it.. They still haven't learnt to fly the brooms yet. Don't be put off, if your insured, got the correct training, and equipment. Top roping is pretty safe.. Kids should be able too experience this stuff. I grew up in London but spent ages mucking about at scouts with axes and fire and "dangerous" stuff. I'd hate it if my kids didn't get the chance to enjoy these things in a "controlled environment." Kids get loads out of it, I used to have kids telling me the 30ft absail I'd just sent them crying down was the best thing they had ever done! One of the reasons I got in to tree work was I need an adrenaline boost every now and then to keep me going. When I worked in an office or schools I'd go hang gliding, kayaking, mountain biking, diving whatever.. I need it to stay sane. Kids should be able to do activities that feel dangerous..

Vertex vent is way better, the ecrin rock with big metal plates to fit your ears onto was way too heavy.

I used to take kids climbing on rocks and swinging from trees etc.. at an outdoor studies centre, had to do my single pitch award with the BMA: "This award trains and assesses candidates in the skills required to supervise climbers on single pitch crags and climbing walls. Common activities undertaken by an SPA holder will be roped climbing and bouldering " I rekon if you have a climber who's done that, and you are top roping you'd be fine. Your woodcraft group presumably has some insurance check if your covered. You'll have to do all the risk assessments and Method statements obviously. I'm no expert so get further advice but don't be put off doing it by doom and gloom merchants. Risk is good for kids. There was an ineresting thread on kids tree climbing a while back on the UKTC forum. Ditto to keeping the ones on the ground interested, wouldn't want more than 5 at a time. We always had a "round robin" system where you split the group up with a bunch of other activities.

When we're that busy prices creep up... We're not that busy at the mo however.. You must be doing something right. Are others out there feeling a slow down or is it just me?

I used to do yoga and got a lot out of it, I should make the time to do it again.. it's amazing how much of a work out you can get without jumping around. My sister is a bit of a guru very bendy. Generally climbing trees we resort to brute strength, which resorts in us screwing up our bodies. I'm not half a flexible as I was in the past but stronger. We always have big decent holds and something grab on to. I did a rock climbing course a few years back, the little French instructor was mortified by my style. When climbing on rock you need to use more skill as your holds are much smaller. If you watch decent rock climbers it like dance, slow fluid movements. I try to do this tree climbing, self belaying gets in the way and when you can simply prussic up it is simpler..

I've had my Weaver Harness for about 10 years now. It was the first tree harness I got and the only one I've really used, not conting some rubbish when I was in New Zealand. I'd like a new harness but there's nothing wrong with the one I've got. It's bomb proof, two sliding D's quick to get on, moulded to my shape, comfortable and jingles when you walk.. I went and tried a bunch of harnesses but just found it them fiddly in comparison. I know the weaver is a bit... "agricultural" in design but what benefits am I going to get from spangly modern design.