Bundle 2

Its quite disconcerting...and this from a govt that touted themselves as "The Green alternative". Despite lacking confidence in the process I posted this recently and perhaps you'd be interested to reply yourselves...? Im not sure I know how to respond to all the questions it poses....They got a cheek IMO to put this out to consultation at the same they plan selling off . Shameless hussies!! White paper-biodiversity:consult.pdf

So this is what you meant when you said "less differences between than within" ? Cos to be honest, I may be having ( another) blond moment but I really made no sense of the comment phrased as it was.... That there seems to be across the wider spectrum of "its all trees" you are saying the various disciplines appear to overlap. That in this way it is less separated than individual arbs for the reasons you state above. I think I am in agreement with you post above.

Hallelujah and praise the lord.... And someone slap that drunk ! Hyperbole indeed!

It's just gratuitous use of descriptive language....

Im not sure a debate as to an "agreed" definition has much to do with it either...! I dont know but I find the "homegrown" aspirations of some comments tend to exclude any real discourse about the industry as it tends to limit quite drastically the dynamic of arboriculture. ( And it's rather depressing frankly) Perhaps we need to define arboriculture . As professionals within the industry, it would be hoped that a more "inclusive" view of the various aspects of the "arboricultural" industry might prevail.....?

If there's bats present, it's unlikely to please Natural England that you wish to remove it. As an arb, you gotta remember you provide a service. Most " sensible" bat guys ( if there is such a thing ) recognise this . It is a possibility that bats use the tree neither as a roost or a nursery but as a lone bat ( v. low numbers) dormitory. It is likely to need to be in a strategic position with regards a woodland bat roost or corridor that in some way forms a strategic part of bat habitat for legislation to kick in requiring the tree's retention. Depending on the outcome, you could of course offer to prune the tree as before, with regard the ecology/conservation.....? Keep us posted...!

I totally agree. Ecologically, these are hard times. Despite the successes of the "conservation" uptake since the last ecological white paper (This Common Inheritance: Britain’s Environmental Strategy-1990) also cited by Rackham (A History of the Countryside) pressure continues to be relentless. edit: Great thread Tony. Thanx for posting!

Its good to get the range of views. It keeps the overview a little more balanced. At the end of the day, none of us have seen the tree in question and only offer up "opinion". Dont forget, the LA have given the ok for a reduction.!

Never say never would be my response to the road issue. I was gonna post that the owners may not be up, quite understandably, for the expense of a management regimen. It will require repeat visits, at cost, from an arborist. That the owner is for the retention where possible makes for a refreshing change...!() Daldinia is a saprophyte, as has been said. Ash though , is not the greatest wood from a decay/residual strength point of view. You need to balance the extent of the reduction against two issues as I see it. Reducing the tree is prudent in view of the aspect (road) Leaving enough for the tree to respond is essential. Failing to do this will mean you will be back next year to remove it!( Not good for the client ) Bear in mind the LA ( is it TPO'd ?) has provisionally agreed a reduction. Leave it as it is and the risk of failure will not be addressed. This tree is not yet mullered! It is quite possible to get this right. Of course, you may find the condition of the tree is worse than anticipated, once you get into the canopy. Equally, it may be quite sound despite the daldinia! These are decisions you can make if you do the work. Personally, I would not wish to see ALL the ivy gone. I understand the difficulties of assessing the stability of a tree when it is covered in ivy and this must not be ignored in this case I would suggest,. You should have a good look through the ivy for the Innontus as Hama has indicated. Removing the ivy allows you to make a realistic appraisal. However, as a beekeeper, I can tell you that ivy has more benefits from a wildlife point of view than may be the popular view. Could you remove it but leave it at a lower height? The sail area it creates is not insignificant. Reduce this and already you are reducing the PoF....(Probability of failure ) Good luck with it mate and keep us posted? Shrewsbury is a beautiful part of the world eh. Great hedges . Quite the eye opener. Here in norfolk, we ripped them all out way back when...BIG mistake imo.

Very good mate!

Speed bumps wreck your motor's suspension and all the more if you got "Tarty" alloys....( OPPPss, thats me then! ) Cameras dont work. I dont care what they tell you! Good riddance to the nanny state with their "listening"...its all population control. Just dont look like you are having any fun..they'll bust you!

"However, the tree is very obviously vital, vigorous and happy, it would easily take a 30% plus reduction, i would use a heavey drop crotch technique to remove heavy volume rather than just foliage mass. This tree is becoming a veteran, an ecosystem in its own right and should if at all possible be retained....." I like this appraisal. And from the images up, its a pretty good read too! At the end of the day ( I guess ), its not your decision but that of the owners in as much as they will need prepeared to meet the costs involved. For warned is forearmed as they say! Hey, Im a conservationist, I would say that!

Move the shed !

I think you are making alot of assumptions in this one paragraph already...Theres no helping some folk!

That may be so but I dont think there's any great mystery to it ! Times change. Our situation changes. Once, where removal and pruning was a way forward, we find ourselves needing to promote an "arboriculture" of a different kind. By using our knowledge and skills we are able maintain and care for trees in the public arena. We also recognise the need for them. We also recognise that they need to be kept perhaps more than was once the case. Think back to the Victorians. They mostly planted them and started the whole Urban /street tree concept.(Aswell as parks and gardens etc etc...) If we were to plant more, there would be less pressure to retain them where they were a bit of a nuisance. It may be why or how our industry was "born " as you put it, but not the extent of what we consider our remit. It is a narrow view if you are suggesting that our industry does little else. We are now in the business of promoting the "smart" design where trees are recognised and used for the same reasons as before but with many new and formerly unrecognised benefits. And we need to plant more. And folk need to be made aware of the real benefits of trees and stop thinking they can be removed and there be no consequence. If you do not see that the context within which you are practicing arboriculture has changed, then you need to get with the program!

Some striking images they are too. I hope you dont mind if I drop a link to a BBC documentary all about parks......(?) BBC iPlayer - Britain's Park Story Tim.

This on a stump of Castenea sativa..( sweet chestnut) Interesting stump, so Ill put it up!

Just seen your post David. Yes, I rather think it unlikely myself! Nearly stepped on this earth ball....coulda been messy!

Its always interesting this..saprobic/pathonogenic issue. I've always thought of this species as strictly saprobic. Feeding on dysfunctional wood. Here it is on a perfectly healthy birch found roadside in Norfolk. Im betting there is a strip of dysfuntional cambium .I didnt look that close as it goes. Shame they are a little too far gone for the pan! Pleurotus (ostreatus )

Natural environment: an invitation to shape the nature of England This will have implications for our industry I feel certain. Here's the link and the "discussion" document! Natural environment: an invitation to shape the nature of England | Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs newp-discussion-260710.pdf

Its only a small post. Sorry guys but after some of the last couple of pages, I though this might be relevant. Its certainly worth putting up somewhere you'd think? Caroline Spelman speech – Launch of Environmental White Paper discussion paper ? Kew – 26 July 2010 | Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Not the most illuminating image botanically speaking but is it an ailanthus altissima - Google Search

Lifting the lid on the hive in the backyard here in its urban setting, I grabbed these images of the little bees. They are such well mannered creatures. A matter of luck as much as anything else as it is by no means a given that they offer you a cuppa when you go to steal their hard earned honey!

You gotta figure the criticism that has apparently lead to the document posted is not untypical. It seems that it may indeed be a common view that BS5837 does not infact go far enough in its remit. Personally, I think it is part of its strength that it permits a degree of "interpretation" by design. We are not living in either a black & white or "Cut & Dried" world afterall. As for the position taken by the council concerned; it would not pay to take it too seriously imo. They are over reaching! It is a totally untenable stance that the document proposes; regardless of your views as to the efficacy of the BS5837 standard: Reports to standard BS5837 still suffice thank-you.