Bundle 2

That's an interesting point matey and one that was being discussed on the BBC radio earlier this week. I think you are quite right in that the public at large could/would do untold damage to the deadwood fauna by the widsepread removal of wood for fuel. Quickthorn is right in saying the auspices for the removal of this rite on FC land was H&S. I cant pretend to know whether it was simply more expedient to deny access via the route of H&S than to require biodiversity and conservation legislation to adequately protect the resource or whether it was never the intention to protect the deadwood fauna associated with the woodland owned by the FC. Typically (by comparison) european legislation is way ahead of that in the UK where the ecological concerns are of relevannce . I find it quite distressing to think the FC was guided by H&S on this. What a crock of crap. BUT, I'm kinda glad they did. Im not sure I feel quite so strongly with respect the fungi. I probably do but the FB is only a small part of the organism and the idea that removing the FB prevents the effective distribution of spores is not quite as compelling an argument. The simple act of picking the shroom releases thousands of spores. However, there are whole communities of organisms that rely on the fb for breeding and pupation. Most are quite specialised and require specific conditions of the FB to succeed. Removing them clearly reduces the habitat available. Or so the argument goes.

Dunno.....! I reckon the public at large either does not know the system well enough to care or simply (as non tree owners perhaps) does not care. I reckon the majority of those who own trees covered by a TPO probably do resent the responsibility and restrictions. This is not the overall impression held by the majority in the industry. It is however my experience of the public and too many of the contractors for whom I have worked over the years...(I have posted document surveys that seek to establish to what extent and in which context people view and appreciate trees ) It is also probably only fair to say that there simply is not the data to number crunch the stats that would tell us whether the TPO system does actually serve to preserve trees in the wider urban/planning/amenity context. One assumes that the "expedient" in context of the making of the order does speak of the need for preservation and by default, the effectiveness of the system(?) PopularTrees.pdf lohr1-04.pdf Attitudes to tree usa.pdf

....reckon it would make for a wicked base jump!

Same thing caused this too I reckon.

Mmmm.... Rparateur d'antenne 540m d'altitude

Rarely culminates in failure. Oak can live with and compartmentalize the chicken alot of the time ime. It does happen tho'. There's a thread hereabouts that started to document failures from the sulphur polypore.....Not saying you shouldn't look into it a bit further.....

I must have to admit, this is the flip side of the scenario....If there is no value in the timber, or perhaps if a return that exceeds the performance of softwood crops can be wrought from "recreation" as you have suggested RichardT( Monetaray access...facilitating the return) the woodlands become valuable . Everybody wins.. Woods get managed Public get access/education/recreation etc Asset value is increased in of itself. Of course, it goes without saying that the "externalities" in need of assessment can be funded form the purse of "healthy" business.

This what it looked like last year....

What's any of it really worth? I don't think anyone's really got a handle on it at the moment. There has simply not been the investment into the research that informs this question. Much has been invested in it.Pounds and pence. Its a political posture that fails to acknowledge the value to our heritage in real terms but the pressing need to devalue(further) this resource under the auspices of servicing our national debt as a matter of the utmost urgency. I am not convinced. We should press for the appropriate integrated valuations. Not toss the baby out with the bathwater!

Aptly timed post...just read this (patchy) report.. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/country side/8082756/Ministers-plan-huge-sell-of f-of-Britains-forests.html If you needed a reason to sign the petition..it is surely vindicated in this report....? ( I quote..) " Better accounting of business im- pacts and dependence on biodiversity and eco- system services – direct and indirect, positive and negative – is essential to spur needed change in business investment and operations [b2]. Current accountancy rules, purchasing policies and repor- ting standards do not consistently require attention to environmental externalities – including social costs due to impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity...." Stop Uk Forestry Destruction petition

Cheers....Is Pholiota a concern to tree health? I dont know!....be interested to see some images of the work but in particular....the decay etc....?

That photography degree coming out again....Nice pics mate! -)

And the fungus is....?

It coming down on account the shaggy "Pholiota" Bob ?

Ha ha...I was taught by Tony Leech...many years ago!

It's a gano....

Cheers Andy. Pommie...Id hope folk are able to navigate their way through the minefield of rights etc without having to resort to severing a root...and THEN, letting the owner know. Not saying you are wrong but that there are ways of doing things, even when dealing with difficult and unhelpful members of the public. Then again..I am a part of the "problem sector" so yeah... do what you like!

It may be an "actionable nuisance" i suppose....it may also come under an infringement of rights/priveleges in that the "complainant" shall I say, is being prevented from enjoying her property perhaps?

I have replied within the text.... I do not see why the Arb Joiurnal cannot allow access to articles once they have passed their sell by date....This is badly expressed I know, but Williams point is well made...AA take note please.... As for being "problem sector" I can't be bothered to argue with you...you're probably right. Thank you for your erudite and personal insight into my character....

Thanks for posting William. You have made a good point and described the issue as I see it, only in much clearer terms. There isn't really much excuse is there? To suggest publication is a means of "luring" membership is naive and a little bit insulting Paul ! A smart allic somewhere down the line once said..." If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem"

"....If we were asked to carry out the work, assuming courts/soliciters resolved it, would we be liable for future problems even if the work was carried out with a caveat re. stability, infection etc?...." You appear to be asking if it's okay to remove a large(ish) root which will affect stability? I would say "at your own risk" You then ask whether you can prescribe this solution, and it's being adopted in a legal dispute; can this fact of reduced/unknown stability be somehow not linked directly to yourself as the arb who suggested it? You must be joking imo!

Good question David...! In fact, over the two days, the only specific mention as to location in relation to the Innonotus dryadeus and the FB's on trees was made by David L. His assertion seems not to include appearing higher up the stem. I am guessing that the significance of decay low down on the bole ( around the base and in close proximity to the buttress roots then) is of more consequence...or so the theory goes! I am not sure it does the fungus any favors to exclude the possibility of it fruiting higher.....Much of what was said re fungus and trees was generic.( I felt like telling the Lonsdales and Butlers of this world to look in the fung threads here.) I digress. David made the point that you will see the dryadeus between buttress roots . He appeared to make an indication about the topographical areas the fb's more commonly prefer on the stem...( not explaining myself very well here! ) IE-In dips and crevices etc. Nothing further was said in this respect except possibly again, the assertion that the FB's location is not necessarily indicative of the area of decay.( Or that the FB can easily be some distance from the food source I suppose.) BTW-Hatfield was relatively quiet from the fungus point of view and in comparison to other sites this year although the grassland/pasture had some depending where we were...! It maybe of interest to note that in relation to trees and decay, the moisture factor was an issue that seemed worthy of emphasis. David L obviously convinced that the dryadeus is pumping moisture out of the tree/substrate...Whilst this would seem to make good sense, and tie in with the point about moisture and anaerobic conditions being detrimental to fungal lifecycles, I am not sure why this process wouldn't be seen in a more widespread sense were it being actively used as a strategy by fungi. Maybe there has been some research into this..? If so, it will not , most likely, be research from the UK !

Similar to merip? It is a root rot although a white rot. Perhaps you are right. I was at Hatfield at the weeks beginning and listening to the likes of Dr D and other fung specialists. It was repeated throughout that Innonotus dryadeus will/can cause concerns but that at a late stage....That it takes time to get established. Those pics of Matt's look very like the oak in question is coping well with the decay process....some decay there obviously, but main buttress roots look as if they are pulling their weight? Id be a bit concerned by that bright orange crap tho'

".....The main problem is that people NEVER go to the trouble of ident confirmation on brackets like these, and this is a massive and critical error in hazard evaluation. The prognosis and diganosis of decay and its development is in its infancy. We have so much to learn, or rather the info is out there, but no ones reading it!....." This is a frustration that I share with you . Very quickly I became reticent about exploring and relating this information on the forum as it is too readily dismissed and put down by folk who take things to heart or too seriously or just plain and simple, big them selves up too much....! I cant be bothered to feed my ulcer by arguing with complete strangers who seem to know little, and are prepared to be told less! It quickly descends into a world of anything and everything wrong about internet communication, and not the matter in hand-fungi,wood decay and issues of Tree care! Its a rare thread that I find interests me these days...and this is because of what gets discussed frankly...I certainly dont have the kind of problems I experience with people on the internet, in the real world.....

"....The Ganoderma could be G.australe or applanatum (the name 'adspersum' is now australe.) Apart from breaking part of the bracket off, the only other way of telling which from what is by measuring the spore length under a scope with a 100x oil imersion objective..... This is done by measuring alot of spores and making an average size assessment of length! Good luck with that....lol