Amelanchier

Im in. Can we confirm the dates??

Im with Phenom and the slime mold theory.

Inonotus hispidus on Ash is pretty bad news as Ed notes and the fruiting body will darken and deteriorate with age until you are left with a charcoally texture. Inonotus dryadeus on Oak is not great but not even in the same league IMO. It would be worse on Rupe's Turk if it were lower down amongst buttresses. As it is it would seem that it might be exploiting the compartmentalised dead wood behind the callus? Not instantly a fell though, perhaps a reduction is poss?

Pete, I'm sure it has a picture of a "sidewalk trencher" in it so maybe that was the reason?

Is that the Harris, Clark & Metheny text? If it is, I have it. Wanna borrow it to see for yourself??? I found it fairly useful, it has a good structure but is definitley American (complete with hardiness maps of the entire continent!)

Actually, the consent is issued for the works subject to the conditions detailed within it but regardless of who applied. It would be "unreasonable" to condition that only a certain person could undertake those works, and an unreasonable condition cannot be enforced (as Pete noted). Therefore, the LPA don't condition a specific contractor.

I wasn't aware of any link between Boletus spp and tree decline. They are certainly noted for their mycorrizhal associations with various species and I think that their conspicous absence from tree decay texts hints at their impact. Fungi by Spooner & Roberts (ISBN 0-00-220153-4) is a good book which lists known associations by tree species.

They'll be mycorrhizal association fungi. Russula spp. and Betula is a classic combination

Inonotus hispidus

I'm afraid this isn't the case. An area designation will cover the trees specified in the first schedule - typically "...All trees of whatever species within the area marked XX on the map..." There is no mention of any minimum size in the act or the regs so this will include saplings and seedlings. The older the order, the greater the logistical and adminsitrative nightmare it becomes.

Mani. Do you actually have anything constructive to say about the draft 3998? Anything at all? Any detailed suggestions on how to improve it? (I'm guessing that you'll come back with something along the lines of "burn it", so please surprise me and don't bother being so predictable.)

Guide to good climbing practice & NTPC CS38 Guidance refers to 3-way for all parts of a climbing system. Thats irrelevant though really 'cos why would you want to? Three way lockers don't cost any more and the arguement that they're difficult to open one-handed is pathetic.

Here's an interesting bit for you all... 6.2 Tree inspection A competent arboriculturist qualified to NQF level 3 should assist the client in considering the risk posed by the trees. Risks alter as trees grow and circumstances change, therefore tree management and inspections should be reviewed regularly. The inspection of trees with the express purpose of identifying specific problems (e.g. hazards or subsidence) is a specialized subject and should be carried out only by an arboriculturist as described above. In addition, all employees and contractors (particularly tree work contractors and grounds maintenance contractors) should be encouraged to take responsibility for making opportunistic observations of trees during their other work and to report changes that can occur. Any such issues discovered during arboricultural operations should be referred to a competant arboriculturalist as described above. You guys happy with that? Not a problem for me... ker-ching

Hands up who like paperwork? 7.2 Instructions prior to carrying out tree work. ...The contractor should prepare a risk assessment and method statement (including quality of work), and ensure there is a clear written specification of the work. You've got TPO consent on the condition that you follow BS3998:2008... wheres your method statement then? Reasonable? Bye bye to natural crotch rigging... 7.10 Damage caused to trees. ...Where a tree, or part of a tree, is used as an anchor or to redirect a load, precautions should be taken to avoid damaging it (see Annex J). J.1 General Using a tree as an anchor point applies pressure that can cause damage to the cambium. There are three applications where a tree may be required as an anchor point: a) to assist with felling a tree in chosen direction; b) pulling a tree (or stump) out by its roots; c) when using rigging systems. Better buy more rigging gear to comply with the new draft 3998?

As you are all by now probably aware, there is a draft out for the revised BS3998. Its in a consultation period now but as the document is a bit hefty (and a bit intimidating?) I thought I'd pull some chunks out of it for you all to chew on. Remember, this is the standard that you should be referring to in your quoting and is certainly the standard to which you'll be conditioned to follow with regard to planning and TPO consents. So its worth having a look at what the changes will be!! Case in point Section 9 Crown Management by Pruning and related annexes (my emphasis in bold) 9.8.1 General ...NOTE 2 Within the context of crown reduction as opposed to “topping”, the diameter of cuts would not normally exceed 100 mm. Worth knowing don'tcha think? Is that something you work to already?? Annex E.1.3 Severity of pruning Pruning can be regarded as severe if the total cross-sectional area of all the cuts is more than one-third of the cross-sectional area of the trunk. As shown in Table E.1, forty-eight cuts of 50 mm-diameter have the same area as a single 346 mm cut (see also Figure E.1 concerning reduction of the volume of the crown). So, a useful rule of thumb? Impractical? What do you think? 9.8.4 Specifications for crown reduction The specification for crown reduction should be accurate and clear, so that the desired result is achieved. To avoid ambiguity, the specified end-result should be stated either as the tree-height and branch-spread which are to remain, or the average equivalent in branch length (in metres). End-results should be specified for individual branches if the growth habit of the tree creates a need for this. NOTE 1 Specifications for a “percentage reduction” are imprecise and unsatisfactory without reference to volume, length, height, spread etc. A 30% reduction in crown volume can be considered to be approximately equivalent to a 12% reduction in overall branch length (i.e. radial distance).(See Figure E.1) NOTE 2 Specifications for crown reduction which state what will remain are normally used to enable verification, but, to assist implementation, may be translated into what is to be removed (e.g. length of branch). Therefore, you will no longer be able to recommend just a 20% reduction to BS 3998. Will that affect you? How many people out there quote using percentages? Do you do it to give the climber a bit of flexibility? This is the sort of stuff that will affect your day to day work and believe me thats just a tiny proportion of the changes. To me this looks like a hugely comprehensive document, definatley something that will help UK arb. I'll pull some other points of interest out over the next few days.

Looks like the rootstock is plain old F. excelsior to me. And those splits are growth cracks in the bark so its probably characteristic of the species - but then I haven't seen too many...

The weather was being all Northern and it was a long mossy oak limb. His redi limb was 'uge and it would have been a great safe return limbwalk. Problem was wet rope + two anchor points on same line = uber friction. So he had to bin it and swing back into the stem ending up lower than he wanted.

Heres the draft 3998 in .pdf for at http://lists.tree-care.info/sympa/d_read/uktc/BS3998/ You might not want to print it off though - 86 pages!!! At first glance seem fairly comprehensive...

Yep. Quite a few about today - ran though clouds of the little suckers on my usual route. NB They don't taste good. I was thinking boom/bust pred/prey cycles?? Lotka–Volterra equations? Though they aren't supposed to have natural predators over here?? Maybe just natural phenomena??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_cycle

Yep Andy. Just TPO/CA. The waters are so muddy with normal boundary trees I thought I'd let APN 11 tackle it!! I TPO'd a large Copper Beech a couple of months ago right on the boundary between two properties - one guy wanted to have the side off including flush cutting to the stem. IMO it'd be a dereliction of duty to let him. It's a shame when trees become a part of a power struggle.

Ha, I'd be frothing at the mouth with the fury!!

The bit that wouldn't make me very happy would be you telling people that they could legitimately hack the side off a TPO tree. The bit that wouldn't make you very happy would be where you get prosecuted, fined and end up with a criminal record. The bit that wouldn't make the homeowner very happy is the fact that there is an offence for the tree-worker and the tree-owner. Allow me to elaborate... To claim exemption from the T&CP Act with regard to overhanging branches, you would have to prove that the work you undertook was neccessary to abate an "actionable nuisance". This is taken to mean "...that which has, or could foreseeably cause direct damage." There is no such exemption for "hanging over my garden and blocking the light to my sunlounger". Your common law right to prevent tresspass by limbs or roots does not exclude you from the statutory protection of trees. This is strict liablility we're talking about. You have to prove that you have not committed an offence. No evidence?? You could find yourself prosecuted, maybe end up with a criminal conviction (try getting insurance/finance then!) and being fined £2500 for unauthorised pruning. Loopholes? Professionals prefer to call them exemptions. Dead or dangerous trees are exempt from statutory protection. You have to prove that they are exempt. The "prudent landowner/homeowner" to which you refer was a term used in the 1985 Smith v Oliver case. Though the defendent was found not guilty of an offence after topping 5 sycamore in a CA without notifying the LPA the judge concluded in his summing up (my empahsis): "Of course it does not mean that any individual who owns trees and wishes to remove them can say to himself, 'having regard to their position, the way they have been planted and their unsuitability, I can see that in a number of years they are going to constitute a danger' and then cut them down. One has to look at the position at the time. If such damage is far off, remote and not immediate in the sense that I have just described, the trees do not come within the meaning of the exemption". http://www.aie.org.uk/resources/case_law/aie_case_smol.html Further information regarding boundary trees and the law can be found within my star witness - Arb Practice Note 11 which I have attached as a .pdf, bear in mind that this is considered to be best practice and as such may be referenced in legal proceedings.

Promoted? I saw an experienced, competant climber use a technique unknown to me in a appropriate situation. I thought I'd share my experience. Promoted? Seriously?

Its the only thing to do mate. Remind them of section 6.37 of the blue book. 6.37 An application under a TPO must: (1) be made in writing to the LPA, (2) state the reasons for making the application, (3) identify the trees to which the application relates, by reference to a plan if necessary, and (4) specify the operations for which consent is sought. This information has not been superseded and will not be until the regs change.

The UN were busy